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 -
Teens babysitting is now illegal in Florida. Well, not technically, but practically so. A mother has been charged for leaving her 14 year old to watch her other kids (9, 11, 12) for a few days while she was on a work trip. She hired an adult babysitter to check on them twice a day too.
The youngest accidentally dropped a weight while working out, the type of accudent that can easily occur under adult supervision, they called 911 to get him medical help, and the cops proceeded to arrest the mom upon arriving back home. For the children's safety, they have now been placed with the father who is facing domestic abuse charges and has a restraining order against him, a very safe place indeed.
Here's another summary real quick of the important parts https://x.com/niah_x03/status/2115452369043652617
I've talked about this topic before here on themotte, how children and teens are now treated as completely incapable babies and this will be enforced not just socially but through the law. If it's not immediately clear I think this is ridiculous. When I was a teen, my older sister (15) was babysitting other people's kids. There's even a popular book story from the 80s about young teens and tweens (yes, some were 12!) in middle school babysitting children as part of the babysitters club. And it's not just fiction, people did that in real life. For the younger folk here, this hysteria about leaving a teenager to watch over younger children as neglect is very new and very modern.
I've talked before about how my parents and grandparents would play all around the neighborhood in their own childhood, and yet now even walking in a gated community is deemed too dangerous. At this point I can't even let my own children have independence even if I wanted to (which I do), they literally are not allowed to grow as normal human beings used to because the cops might show up cause they're out on the front yard!
It is just another part of the helicopter parent hysteria as I've talked about before as well. There are young adults now in college who need their parents to walk them through basic life, come visit to do the laundry, and clean for them! We need less "parenting" and more freedom so kids can actually be mature instead of still crying for their mommies in college! Tweens now aren't even allowed to go to another aisle in the grocery store
I once had a great 25-26 year old intern recent graduate who still had her mother trying to butt in once when something happened at my work. She's lucky I'm very forgiving and understanding of her situation and I know that she was embarrassed about it too (I even helped her find a better living situation) but it's another example of how a lot of parents are so crazy nowadays like that!
And again, it's legally enforced now. It's so legally enforced that they'll take your kids away and give them to an abuser with a restraining order! Is this really the society we're stuck with now, where our children are increasingly coddled in their teens, sometimes into their 20s and 30s, never expected to grow up or learn responsibility?
How do I phrase this in a way that doesn't sound cheeky... I think the retreat from public to private spaces is concomitant with a loss of social cohesion. The largest cause of declining social cohesion is diversity. Diversity, people being different from each other, makes everyone more hostile and more suspicious. It makes public places inherently untrustworthy and erodes trust in the commons. People retreat into larger houses and private spaces. Interfacing with the open world becomes inherently suspicious.
Therefore in order to slowly claw back social cohesion I would deport illegal immigrants, declare an immigration moratorium, impose harsh minimum sentences for felons convicted of violent crimes, promote English proficiency in immigrant populations, eliminate discriminatory DEI workplace requirements, institutionalize the homeless, grow the economy, and promote a strong patriotic vision of America for everyone to assimilate to. The more everyone has in common the more we can start to trust each other again.
Less polemically, there's something also to be said for the American car-centric life and suburbia. But I consider that those partially-or-predominantly developed as a reaction against the original American social unrest, which was the rise of the Civil Rights Movement. (Maybe also the Red Scare, if you prefer.) So we should also encourage some modest public transit and reduce building restrictions in urban cores. And also lock up all the criminals.
There's also something to be said for the transition away from large family networks. You only need a babysitter if grandma and cousins live far away. But this is part cultural (America descends from Anglo social norms where the young have always left home) and part economic (opportunity will always pull many away from wherever they grew up).
I say all of the above seriously. If you wanted to get into goofier ideas, you could ban tattoo parlors, recriminalize marijuana, enforce cell phone and speaker bans in public spaces, enforce dress codes and curfews, and impeach a few prosecutors and judges who let criminals run free. Actually, per William Bratton, I think broken windows policing does work, so you could probably stand also to benefit from cleaning up graffiti and the sidewalks.
Also, finally, I know that the trendline on this has been bad for many generations now. But overreactions usually invite overreactions and I would expect that, if you build social cohesion back up, it would be quite possible for teen spirit to make a comeback in a single generation or less.
I wouldn't blame imported diversity on that one.
Immigrants are more likely to have different generations living under one roof and to be more cavalier in their approach to rules and laws. Not the kind to call the police on other people for some imaginary child abuse.
There is a kind of anarcho-tyranny inherent in the bureaucratic government of developed societies.
Progressive law-people will somehow release extremely violent offenders under some flimsy ideological excuses, but then excessively punish normal people through the process. For example taking away children while the family is getting investigated, without any real chance of a trial. That process is not in itself punitive for the people who are actually bad parents.
I've heard that some people actually abuse foster care, by regularly coming to get their kids back once in a while just often enough to retain parental rights and whatever benefits are associated with the kids, and dropping them off again when they want to go on a bender.
The primary culprit for the dissolution of the American family is children moving away from their parents for better career prospects, and as in the story, a woman feeling compelled to go on a business trip to keep her job.
Perhaps the underlying culprit is the specter of the lack of freedom of association in urban areas, which makes young people anxious to make enough money to afford a 'safe' housing location, but that doesn't seem that strong of an explanation to me.
Perhaps the 'good career anxiety' is also the cause of the primary issue plaguing parents in the 'safe' housing locations (suburbs): the Karen, mandated or voluntary reporter.
The men who would become fathers were driven toward the money-making careers and away from the luxury, culture-making ones and we end up with publishing, teaching, journalism, public communications, marketing... dominated by women or men who think just the same.
Perhaps nerd culture is another aspect of this as well. The transgressive, teenage-like attitude of nerd culture 'you wouldn't download a car' makes it really hard to consolidate culture for creative men.
If the nerds had somehow managed to strong-arm the government as well as the public school unions, the APA, the AMA, Hollywood, etc, and somehow made piracy impossible, or prevented foreign imports, perhaps American culture would be much different.
For example, public education could be infinitely cheaper if we had a few local child-minders and a couple of teachers in a giant Zoom meeting across the entire country.
Imo the only way to solve the current birthrate crisis that some have started to recognize as a problem would be to completely dismantle the child protective services' apparatus.
Who even cares about that, objectively speaking?
Left-wingers clearly don't care about children's well-being when they support abortion. They also do not in general care about child abuse, or they would not demand the mass importation of parents from countries where the standards of child safety are significantly relaxed.
I imagine a lot of right-wingers have started to understand how the government can use them to attack their family if they have alternative stances on healthcare practices or schooling.
This is going too far into culture-warring and boo-outgrouping. When you are describing your outgroup and what they "clearly" do or don't care about, if you can't describe them in terms they would recognize or agree with, you are not describing, you are projecting. "Left-wingers clearly don't care about child abuse (because they disagree with me politically)" is just a cheap accusation that "My enemies are evil and lie about not being evil."
You may actually believe that-- we've had this conversation many times, with many people, and clearly many people do sincerely believe that left-wingers are uniformly evil and hate children. I'm sure it is not news to you that many left-wingers think similarly vile things about right-wingers. And if a left-winger came here and said "Right-wingers clearly don't care about laws or democracy or child-rape because (insert a random scrape of social media)," I am sure you'd expect us to tell him that such generalizations are not acceptable here. Even if you really believe your enemies are all cartoon villains.
You're already on our radar as a likely troll and/or alt, so if you're testing the waters, consider them tested, and you as well.
I'm just making inferences from facts.
Saying 'pest-control operators do not care about the well-being of rodents or they wouldn't be laying traps to kill them' is not boo-outgrouping.
In my opinion, killing somebody or supporting their killing is a demonstration that you do not care about their well-being. Maybe I'm wrong, some ecological arguments could be made along the lines of prey/predator balance, maybe we do need to kill [some of] the humans to solve climate change...
This is something that can be debated.
'Children are precious and should be protected' is actually a political value that is not universal. Even to this day we have people protesting for example Columbus Day, because they disagree that the human sacrifice stopping was good, actually.
Or people supporting an American woman who confessed to killing her own children.
I'm not strawmanning people as evil, this is real beliefs that they tell us about.
Some people do want to kill children in the womb, this is a fact, and my claim is that this means they do not care for their well-being.
Well if somebody wants to come up and claim that Ramaswamy and his supporters support child-rape because of his recent campaign statements, substantiating the argument with evidence, shouldn't they be able to do so?
How should I present my arguments in a way that is palatable to you?
Read the rules. I will not indulge your bad faith justifications.
I have. I don't understand what is bad faith in saying that people who support the killing of children, human offspring, human beings, in at least some circumstances (before birth) are demonstrably not maximally concerned about the well-being of children. What qualifiers do I need to add to that statement not to make it offensive to you?
There is clearly a segment of the population which prioritizes the well-being or perhaps the mental health of a woman over that of her children in the womb for abortion supporters, or outside of the womb for Lindsay Clancy supporters.
Most people who are pro-abortion have a definition of 'child' that does include bouncing three-year-olds and does not include balls of 256 totipotent cells. I feel sure you know this. You can disapprove all you like, but deducing that therefore abortionists are a-ok with the murder or neglect of three-year-olds is logically fallacious (and wrong). Thus, the requirement to be able to state somebody else's beliefs in terms they'd accept, because if you can do that then you won't make fallacious arguments like
because you know that being pro-abortion does not have anything to do with whether you are for brutalising little children, and neither does relaxing 'standards of child safety'. There are the rare mentally ill person who genuinely doesn't give a damn about children, or sadistically wants children to suffer, but they're rare as hell.
Who is maximally concerned about the well-being of children? Me? You? There are other things in the world that get traded off against the well-being of children: time, cost, convenience, the richness of life for those over 8 years old, potentially the right of refugees not to be tortured to death in their home countries depending on your immigration views. That doesn't mean you have no concern for child protection.
Many pro-abortion people support abortion way after the 24 weeks limit of viability outside the womb.
There is not much practical difference between some types of abortions and going into a NICU ward and hacking premies with a scalpel.
Euphemism for cultures that practice child marriage or sex slavery, genital mutilation, slavery in general... These are the cultures open-borders types love to import into Western countries, therefore casting doubt that they want to improve the well-being of children in the country, as immigrants do not immediately abandon cultural habits upon crossing the border.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not offended. I just don't believe that you are unable to comprehend that if you asked a pro-choice person if they care about the well-being of children, that they would not say "No, I don't care about the well-being of children." Just as you are aware that people who protest Columbus Day are not doing so because they think Aztec human sacrifices were good.
Arguments can be made (and have been made) about revealed preferences, willful ignorance, mistake theory versus conflict theory, etc. But you aren't making those arguments. You are just asserting a priori that a maximally uncharitable interpretation of your outgroup is in fact what they really believe, regardless of what they say.
Therefore, based on that and your previous posts, I infer that you are making bad faith arguments to smear your outgroup. The rules apply to everyone's outgroup, right or left.
My understanding is that the underlying belief is that it was wrong to conquer and replace the Aztecs and other Pre-Columbian nations. Why was it wrong to replace the Aztecs? Because they had a culture that was worthy of celebration, which is also why it is important to do land acknowledgments to that culture. Was human sacrifice / child-killing not part of that culture? Is it not implicit that if you celebrate a culture that includes human sacrifice / child-killing that you think these customs are worthy of celebration?
If I asked a pro-choice person if it's acceptable to kill a child in the womb, would they say 'no'? I thought that was the pro-choice position. Therefore pro-choice people find it acceptable to sometimes kill a child. That's a logical interpretation of their belief. Is that compatible with caring about the well-being of that child in the womb?
Perhaps, that's an argument to make. My personal opinion is that the ones supporting the abortion - perhaps out of some eugenics concerns that being born out of wedlock, to an insane or impoverished mother is a fate worse than death- do not care in the same way about the well-being of the child put to death as the ones opposing abortion. It's debatable who 'cares more about well-being' as they drive the knife through the baby's body, but I don't see how that makes my argument 'bad faith'.
My own belief is that America is currently over-policing parents, over-regulating the behavior of being a parent, out of various concerns, some of them 'child safety', and this contributes to a drop in birth rates.
Safety has been co-opted as a concept by progressive movements, and only works in one direction.
Safety demands that children and employees get vaccinated for access to essential services or activities, but it does not demand that high-risk recreational activities be curtailed to suppress different epidemics such as formerly-named monkeypox or GRID.
Safety means responsible teenagers should not cross state lines with a weapon or be able to use a weapon for self-defense, but it does not mean that gang members should be prevented from entering the country for illegal activities.
Another example of this trend is that some corporations now offer to cover the travel of their female employees to states that allow abortion, as it is obviously beneficial to keep their employees sterile out of convenience for the running of their business. It seems to me that profits and employee retention matter more than the well-being of children in the womb. Same reason that led to the woman 'abandoning' her children to a care of a teenager, corporate pressure on working-age people to always be available to perform.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Race and immigration are irrational explanations for one simple reason, almost every crime against a child is by someone the child is related to or already knows well therefore it's mostly done with the same racial group. For example, 60% of amber alerts are just the parents, yet alone older siblings/aunts/uncles/babysitters/pastors/family friends/etc other groups that are known by the child already and thus very likely to be the same race as them.
Perhaps immigration and diversity erodes trust, but it doesn't hurt children. The people, the often same race people, in the childs life hurt children.
That’s orthogonal to what the other poster actually wrote.
More options
Context Copy link
Aren't the vast majority of amber alerts custody disputes of various types? 'Most crimes are committed by people known to the victim' and 'You should do your best to maintain a strong social fabric' aren't mutually exclusive phenomena, either
Yes, parents kidnapping a child after a separation is the most common form of abduction by far. The main person to fear is not your neighbor, but your ex.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seems possible that diversity / multiculturalism does create more suspicion and distrust, but strongly suspect that a much bigger driver is the complete collapse of a trusted information ecosystem. Even if the main evening news was half approved propaganda, it was the same for everyone and so a shared narrative was everywhere. Now, with smartphones + social media + AI + everything downstream of all three, we are all exposed to extremely conflicting claims and counter claims every day, and no two people’s info system is the same. It is literally making everyone insane. Distrust and suspicion are just the starting point when that happens.
More options
Context Copy link
It's an interesting turn in thinking among the younger right, that suburbs are in fact bad, like leftists exclusively used to say. But it's from diversity, not greedy acquisitiveness. But at this point many who fled the cities have come to, with enough progeny, genuinely prefer suburban life. It allows one to manifest their property dreams - man cave, tree house, dirt bike racetrack - in a way the city always made difficult.
They'll complain the suburbs are bad and in the same breath complain a house in the suburbs costs way too much.
To the extent that the thing making the youth grumpy is a crisis of meaning (I think it mostly is, in the US at least), it is probably harder to generate meaning in a suburb.
Plenty of people have made rural living, small-town living, or urban living a big part of their identity. I have never met someone who made suburban living a part of their identity in that way - the people who are best able to articulate why they love US-style suburbia are LARPing rural lifestyles while living within (single-occupant pickup or SUV) commuting distance of a major-metro job market
Eh, there is no meaning in that sense, beyond "a zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes". Certainly that's what 19th-and-earlier century rural living was about -- you lived to survive and raise the next generation. Works the same in suburbia, it hardly matters that the zygotes make their living in the back area of Walmart or the cubicle farm rather than the back forty of an actual farm.
The tastemakers have made hating suburban living part of their identity, and that's part of the culture -- Little Boxes, Pleasant Valley Sunday, Subdivisions, A Wrinkle In Time, The Stepford Wives, etc. Which is why few will claim that suburban living is part of their identity; it's Just Not Done. Yet nearly every time someone's complaining about the cost of owning housing (as opposed to rent), the benchmark is going to be a single-family detached house, likely in the suburbs. Often enough, one in the town they grew up in, or perhaps the very same house.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would argue economic and educational diversity are bigger factors than ethnic or racial diversity . America was pretty diverse even before the wave of Hispanic and South-Asian immigration, but more cohesive; e.g. Chinese, African Americans, Eastern Europeans, Germans, Irish, etc. Nowadays, you got people who have high incomes and pay a premium to isolate and afford premium services. 70+ years ago, wages were much lower in real terms accords the board. There was no such thing as the $300+ k/year white collar/UMC job. Car culture part of it it by creating literal physical distances.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link