site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People do debased shit for money all the time and always have.

Yes, and as long as we openly call it debased, I'm mostly satisfied. It's the push to see it as a good thing that bothers me.

It’s hard to see surrogacy as much worse than the rest

No it's not! Degeneracy is a spectrum. Cheating on your partner is debased, partaking in crazy Eyes Wide Shut orgies is more debased, and surrogacy is so far off on the spectrum you'd astronomical units to measure the distance.

the embryo created by the gay couple who can afford a $200,000 surrogacy process is likely higher quality than the child the average surrogate and whatever man she picks could create.

Ah yes, surrogacy isn't spicy enough, let's add eugenics to the discussion.

Ah yes, surrogacy isn’t spicy enough, let’s add eugenics to the discussion.

Well, yes, eugenics should be an integral part of this discussion. Frankly, humanity is in dysgenic freefall at this moment in history. I don’t share all of @TracingWoodgrains’ moral priors, but I share his fundamental outlook about the vital importance of making not only more humans, but better humans. Humans who can transcend the entropic baseline and achieve iterative and intentional improvements.

This will, I believe, necessarily involve something that satisfies at least certain definitions of “eugenics”. It might not be babies born in factory vats, á la Brave New World, or meticulous culling of non-engineered bloodlines like Gattaca. (Both of which are, at heart, mawkish failures to engage in any serious way with the upsides of the societies they purport to depict.) It could be as simple as: every poor family gets to raise children, but they might end up raising other people’s biological children. I can try and provide a more comprehensive picture of what that might look like if you want, although I’m certain you already find it monstrous and I don’t know how worthwhile the conversation would be.