This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, I have to deal with that possibility when I take certain actions to save my life. Why should women be exempt?
(You usually only get a couple of seconds to make the decision whether you'd chance being judged by 12 or carried by 6. When you take the perspective the State does, where all life belongs to the State, self-defense is the exact equivalent to an abortion.)
So exactly like they can be at times if in a Blue state and the human being deleted was of their favored demographic, then.
And no. From a symmetrical viewpoint, Red's favored demographic isn't "babies". They simply prioritize the value of life that's more of an inherent threat/liability to the opposite gender. For Blue, they trade off potential increased death for men as the cost of "[non-white] bodies"; for Red, they trade off potential increased death for women as the cost of "baby bodies".
(Thinking babies are somehow sacred here will prevent you from fully understanding this- men/Red reveal this preference, women/Blue don't. If you want to be fair, you must put that moral revulsion aside; if you want to understand women/Blue, you must re-assign sacredness to their demographics instead. You don't get to change this; it's just how it works.)
Progressives have a saying that "when you're privileged, equality feels like oppression". I can't say I disagree.
"False accusations [that result in criminal conviction] are incredibly rare." would also seem like a good analogy here.
But that would require trusting institutions and power structures to be fair.
Which the side in power can't do, and the side not in power needs to cherry-pick hard enough against the institutions so they can get over the hump and take power.
Which results in them being bound in the same way. The fair people are always bouncing between the two sides/playing them against each other for this reason.
(In the same way, little kids who want maximum ability to do whatever happens to interest them [in relative innocence] will always pit Mom against Dad. Mom can be moderated with the dignity/Dad arguments, Dad can be moderated with the safety/Mom arguments. It's not that complicated, never has been- assuming equality, all humans are "assigned" to the Mom or Dad bias- it just never fit some of us all that well.)
What are these?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link