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 -
A young teen is capable of giving birth, and in many places and times this is what they actually did.
The time she should be able to watch a younger kid is, logically, "infinite". (The fact I need to explicitly point that out is part of the problem.)
It's well understood that humans reach sexual maturity before mental and physical. The fact that a social reaches sexual maturity does not imply its ability to survive independently
This isn't true for literally every other animal on the planet, even highly social creatures born helpless.
So please, go on, explain to me the mechanism for why it's magically different for humans (we'll leave out certain hormonal defects as those exist in every creature too).
Because I have a simpler explanation: the reason they're not reaching mental maturity is simply because you are unable or unwilling to provide an environment where they may mature properly. There are a few perfectly adequate reasons for this statement- if you're a parent or institution, it's easier to control a child than an adult, maybe you fear being an empty-nester so you keep them around far longer than they should, or maybe modern technology has bamboozled you into believing that younger human beings are less capable than they actually are.
But since most of those problems are those you have created for yourself, there's no reason to expect, and certainly not with force of law, that this is or should be universal.
Its fair to say that a human mother in the environment that humans evolved in is capable of taking care of a child once she reaches puberty.
But that doesn't mean that a human mother that has just reached puberty in our environment is capable of taking care of a child.
Is that a failure of our society and environment? Eh, I'd say its a tradeoff. We live in a much more complex environment, but that complexity generally allows for the support of more human lives. If we had only hunter gatherer tribes throughout the entire planet, would we be capable of supporting 1 billion people? It doesn't seem like it.
It allows a larger number of human beings to exist.
It does not allow for the support of more full human lives.
Of course, the thing we're debating is whether it's proper for assumptions about your environment to prevent someone else's environment from being suitable for developing such a human being.
I assert that once the physical capacity for this exists, it is incompatible with the dignity of that human being to treat it as if the mental one does not, even if that was the case for most of them.
You can assert what you want. It's not going back to that way. It was a doomed way of life as soon as agriculture developed.
Personally I'm not so enamored with a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Glad we don't have it, even if it means children no longer know enough to navigate the environment.
Many of those who profit handsomely by claiming life was too dangerous for anyone to be permitted to live it said these exact words.
What was the next thing that usually happened to them, and in what measure do you think that reply was deserved?
I don't know what you are saying or implying.
All I'm saying is that once agricultural civilizations existed they slowly expanded and conquered all their hunter gatherer neighbors until there were only hunter gatherers in the worst places for farming.
If you pressed a magic button that turned everyone back to that lifestyle and erased their memories, I think they'd just reinvent agriculture and conquer everything again.
The agricultural lifestyle objectively sucked back then it was worse in just about every way except for one thing: it supported denser human populations. In low tech wars numbers were usually enough to win the day.
I'm saying that when cultures and their personnel deny the inherent human dignity of "being physically and mentally capable of doing something" with the justification that "it's too dangerous for our society", those cultures, and those upholding them, come one step closer to experiencing an outcome that is neither safe nor dignified.
Usually that's death, but it can be some variety of subjugation, too. It comes either from without (by a rival tribe) or within (by the young of your own tribe).
There is ultimately a limit to how safe you can be, and the closer you approach total safety, the closer you are to losing it. Perhaps best to allow a little dignity.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link