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 -
Sure, I'm down with that.
Ok but like, how? How is that a workable policy proposal? How are you going to enforce that? "Cultural norms"? How do you intend to put that particular genie back in the bottle?
I frequently run into this same frustration any time I'm talking to someone who wants to turn back the clock to before the sexual revolution. They have many goals they want to achieve, but are somewhat shy about detailing how they intend to actually go about achieving them, outside of gesturing in an increasingly fervent manner that Something Must Be Done.
My impression from reading your (unrelentingly dour and pessimistic) dating posts over the years is that you're really chomping at the bit to implement some policies that would be broadly considered to be outside the Overton window (whether that be anything from making premarital sex illegal, all the way up to government-mandated breeding programs), but are perhaps a bit reticent to discuss them publicly. If that is the case, then my only advice to you is, discuss them! We are blessed to be on one of the few public forums where radical ideas can actually receive a fair and rational hearing. (It might help you release some tension too, you always seem really wound up in these dating posts, jeez.)
You're already on record as supporting the death penalty for men whose (consensual!) sexual behavior you disapprove of. That's pretty extreme. What principle of bodily autonomy do you hold to, then, that would prevent you from supporting forced marriages for women, especially considering that such an arrangement would be done in the service of ameliorating such a dangerous impending social catastrophe?
See above. Stricter how? Who enforces it?
Restrained in the sense that a prospective employee is restrained relative to large corporations, I suppose. But that's just what you get with a free market.
More options
Context Copy link