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 -
How about a pallet cleanser?
In the other thread a few people brought up surrogacy, and maybe I've spent too much time with TERFs, but am I the only one that overwhelmed with the feeling of Lovecraftian horror whenever it's brought up? The feeling is even more uncanny, because it's like I slept through some great societal debate where everybody decided it's actually a lovely thing that should be celebrated. Although maybe it's not all that bad, there's a certain "how it started, how it's going" quality to the NYT headlines. In any case the casual way it's supporters talk about surrogacy freaks me out even more than militant pro-choicers.
Then there's the whole slippery slope thing:
Love is love, we have a right to get married just the same as you! - Yes I agree!
We also have a right to adopt! - Sure! I mean I have my issues with adoption in practice, but in principle if there are kids without parents, and willing gay couples to adopt them I don't see an issue.
We also have a right to biological children! What? Do you expect us to be ok with not having children?
Wait what? Yes I do! I'm all for tolerance, and living and letting live, but you're not going to make me see this as a lovely family moment, and anyway I don't remember signing on to turning a fundamental human experience into an industry when I supported the gay rights movement. Accept the limits of your biology, and move on.
Which brings me to Dase's idea "postrat «don't mean-spiritedly dunk on a rationalist» challenge (impossible)". Indeed, I can't help myself, and even though I used to be rat/rat-adjacent, I find myself having growing disdain for the entire philosophy. There's a meme that's slowly gathering momentum, that all the trans stuff, and 72 genders is just a foot in the door for transhumanism, and after I heard the idea for the first time, I can't seem to unsee it. This twisted ideology will drive us to throw away our humanity, turn us into a cross-over between Umgah Blobbies and the Borg, or trick us into committing suicide, because there's a subroutine running on some GPU somewhere, that's somewhat similar to the processes in our brains. Given the utter dominance of the trans ideology, the vindication of the slippery slope argument, and the extrapolated trajectory of these ideas, I believe we have no other choice - Transhumanism must be destroyed!
I want you to know that I read the whole first of your post thinking it was Lovecraftian horror that had been proclaimed lovely and worthy of celebration. That you were getting existential dread every time the NYT treated Lovecraft as an aesthetic touchstone rather than a cause for gibbering horror. It wasn’t until I got to the bullet points that I realized what I was missing.
Anyway.
Why isn’t surrogacy compatible with tolerance, with live-and-let-live? A woman should be able to consent to bearing children. So long as she’s not forced into it, not losing her rights to life and liberty, she can have children with whomever she pleases. The men don’t have a right to have children. But I don’t see what woman’s right is violated by an agreement to have them.
Consider the converse. Is it acceptable for a lesbian couple to voluntarily bear an outside man’s children? (I think so, though I am probably biased; my parents are godparents to two such kids.) The same goes for a straight couple hiring a surrogate due to infertility. If she’s willing, and they’re unable, it is a win-win.
The other nice part is that you aren’t forced to see that photo as a nice family moment. It’s kind of unsettling to me, too. Something about the implication that the woman is subservient triggers my chauvinist instincts, perhaps? But I don’t have any reason to believe that it’s actually harmful, except for a bit of secondhand embarrassment for the participants of this awkward photo.
One final note. Transhumanism seems obviously correct to me in the same way as using tools or building personal relationships. I believe we should strive to surpass our mortal limits, and that the fleshy layout of the human body is māyā rather than an essential component of Humanity. Luminous beings are we, not this…crude matter. You may disagree, but I believe that will hold your children back from the stars.
I'd say bodily autonomy is a secondary argument to fetal personhood. But, more importantly, it doesn't keep the mother from choosing pregnancy. She is allowed to accept that imposition and risk. Bodily autonomy is about ensuring she is allowed and not required to do so.
I don't feel like slavery is a very good comparison. It is indefinite, rather than temporary, and it represents a much broader concept of "ownership." Plus it's hard to separate from the much more prevalent nonconsensual slavery. Indentured servitude is a better fit, and my objections against it are weaker. Both slavery and indentured servitude involved further acquisition of rights over the worker, such as allowing transfer or extension of contract, than surrogacy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link