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 -
While a somewhat interesting idea, I think it falls pray to missing the point. The opposition to trans isn’t solely rooted in a logical question about categories; it is rooted in the concept that trans ideology imposes social costs (often by harming girls and youngwomen), can be a fetish the person is making others play out with him, and doesn’t lead to human flourishing.
Step moms often can be pro social and therefore the debate about “are they a mom” isn’t really important in the same way.
Without necessarily subscribing to the position myself, couldn't one make a similar argument for fracturing the definition of parenthood? That accepting different people as "mom" damages the category, breaking down traditional roles and responsibilities, and implying a level of malleability that is both out of step with biological reality and corrosive to society. If so, any individual could be quite pro-social while the recognition of the institution of parenthood as flexible could be dangerous.
I think you see something similar claimed by the more tepid trans-skeptical (which I would probably group myself with) - sure, there are some people that genuinely have gender dysphoria, were always going to have gender dysphoria, and it would be best to do what we can to make those people comfortable, but enthusiastically embracing them as "real women" and telling everyone that gender is malleable is going to lead to a hell of a lot more mental illness and cause way more damage if we make a big deal out of it. Likewise, any individual may be in a difficult position where they're just trying to do the right thing for the kids, and they may deserve for everyone to just call them "mom" for the sake of everyone involved, but we shouldn't start acting like this is as just and good and just as valid of a relationship as a traditional two-parent household.
Curious if that same effect is seen for adopted kids. I just wonder how much stepmoms are just selecting for people who are generally unstable. That doesn’t even mean the step mom is anti social. It could just mean the environment itself is antisocial.
Or—likely most importantly—the effect of inheriting the genes of a single mother and/or the man who knocked her up.
alternatively, knowing that your dad is gone because of the impersonal, unavoidably tragic nature of the world does a lot less damage to a kid, relative to knowing that your dad is gone because he looked at you and your mom, and chose to throw you away.
I've never had a spouse die, but I have been divorced. All else being equal, I'm pretty sure having a spouse die would hurt less.
I don't think it's emotional damage so much as effects on role model. A father who abandoned his familial obligation, or went to prison, is a very bad role model. A father who died will is not present as a role model, but his idealized memory will be.
Also, becoming the man your dead father would have been proud of is more motivating than making a father proud who "clearly" didn't care.
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