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 -
It's quite clear, I don't know what it is youre not understanding. I'm not attacking average conservatives, they can believe what they want, as long as they're not trying to force their way of life on me. I'm pointing out the that it is illogical to appeal to liberal sensibilities of inclusion to paint liberals as the bad people for rejecting the illiberal tendencies of conservatives.
As I said, I think there are many things about the conservative viewpoint that can coexist with object-level liberals in a liberal meta-system. Of course if conservatives reject liberalism itself, that can't be tolerated for game theoretical reasons.
In that case the best that can be offered is an enclave -- which is far more tolerant and accomodating and than conservatives would be, if the shoe were on the other foot.
But your argument is incoherent in the light of the conversation being around the Amish and Hasidim. Their illiberal tendencies are even stronger then those of conservatives.
Ok, but that makes even less sense. Do you think liberals who are in favor of age of consent laws are rejecting liberalism itself? Or are liberals who are in favor of state-recognized marriage being exclusively monogamous rejecting liberalism itself? If not, how were people who were against LGBT rejecting liberalism itself?
It's not incoherent. Amish etc seem content to form their enclaves and practice their values as they see fit without forcing it on others. "Mainstream" social conservatives are not like this and do actively try to pass illiberal policies that would apply to everyone. Even as the Amish are more conservative on the objective level they are more consistent with the liberal meta system.
Depends on how they go about it I think. There are both ethical and secular arguments that can be made for or against both of these. Liberal principles dictate that we should bias ourselves towards a solution that maximizes both personal liberty and liberty of prospective subgroups without causing other on others to be harmed. In practice, if two groups disagree on policy, the more permissive policy has an advantage in that it allows the permissive party and the restrictive party to both coexist (in that the restrictive party and self-apply the more restrictive policy). That's not to say that the more permissive policy is always the right one. In the case of (lowering) the age of consent then the very obvious counter-argument is that children would be harmed by sexual predators.
My original point was that mainstream social conservatives couched their arguments against gay marriage in specifically religious terms which is definitely illiberal: not everyone follows their (interpretation of a specific) religion, so it is illiberal to impose that policy on non-believers on that basis. And so lost the credibility (with mainstream liberals) when they made similar arguments about trans people.
If you want to have an object level discussion about age of consent, or polyamory then state your case.
The drama I was using as an example was referring to cases where they were trying to influence their local school boards, so I don't see how they forcing their views on others any more than the Amish do. Also, given what you written below I'm not sure I buy these policies are illiberal to start with.
And there are both ethical and secular arguments that can be made for or against gay marriage, and gender affirming care. Also just because a secular argument can be made, doesn't mean the current implementation of the policy doesn't stem from past religious mores.
Liberals have turned away from this principle at least a century ago, in response we've seen the rise of the libertarian movement which tried to stay true to the principle, but they have been mocked and attacked by liberals for as long as I've been alive. You mentioned that conservatives have no credibility in calling upon liberal principles, but you really have to take the beam out of your eye here.
The very same obvious argument is used against the uncritical acceptance of someone's gender identity, and it's backed by actual examples like rapists being sent to women's prisons, and yet somehow that position is deemed "illiberal".
Some of them did, some of them didn't. If you wanted to take issue with only the ones that made the religious argument, you should have made that more clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link