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 -
One of my friends has decided to have children with the help of a sperm donor and I have taken more than a passing interest in her search. This is actually the 2nd woman in my broader group of acquaintances who have have decided to go it alone. They are both highly educated, but lack the physical attractiveness that would make it possible to lock down the type of man they have been interested in. But while commitment from the right man can be hard to come by, sperm is incredibly cheap. We are taking elite sperm here, like entirely clean bill of health for 2 generations back, model good looks, tall, athletic, pursuing an MD or PHD in STEM, comes from a family of inventors, grandparents who lived to the age of 100 etc. Imagine someone like the Swede in Philip Roths American Pastoral. You can get a vial of this sperm for 1000 USD, and why wouldnt you as a single woman?
Im not entirely convinced that the draw backs of being a single mother in this situation cannot be off-set by the benefits of having this superior genetic material. I have sometimes during this time felt a tad bit guilty for procreating with my partner with our comparatively average genes. Yes, we will probably pass on good intelligence, but what about physical traits and health? Is there anything parental love can provide that can compare to the confidence that comes with being a 190cm athletic, but yet very intelligent young man?
All this has made me wonder if "leftover" educated women will produce the new elite of tomorrow. Surely this is a more efficient way of making superior babies than the pre-implantation embryo testing of the Collinses? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/pronatalists-save-mankind-by-having-babies-silicon-valley/?
This is bizarre to me. To whom do you think your bear the responsibility of providing progeny that are better than average? The first responsibility you have is to yourself, then your family, then your neighbors, and so on in expanding concentric rings. If literal welfare queens feel no guilt at providing for their children by extracting wealth from the productive, an average man should surely not feel guilt in creating more average kids that will go on to do average, productive things.
My gut response to intentional single motherhood is revulsion and contempt. Someone that isn't capable of pair-bonding has no business having a child. They should figure out how to be a loving and loveable person before subjecting a child to their emotional incompetence.
I mean. That really, really depends. Is someone who had been burned in a house fire at the age of three now emotionally incompetent because most men are turned off by her appearance? They're somewhat bitter and cynical, but rather kind and a decent human being. In certain circumstances you are not choosing the best option, but the least bad. Every road you take kind of fucking sucks and that's just the hand you're playing.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems like none of your business. How about people make the decisions they think are best for themselves?
Do you apply this standard to fentanyl addicts as well? It really isn't my business what they put into their bodies, and they sure are making the decisions they think are the best for themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
What a strange response. This is a forum. If we were to keep our opinions on the matter to ourselves, there would be no point in replying.
So either the top level post in inappropriate, in which case your ire is misdirected, or the post is fine and so is the response, in which case your ire is inappropriate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The logic here is broken. You switched from an example of someone who doesn't feel guilt with no exploration of whether or not they should feel guilt to saying that someone else should not feel guilt.
It would be perfectly consistent to say that both the welfare queen and the man passing on mediocre gene should feel guilt and the fact that the welfare queen does not actually feel this guilt is merely a reflection of her poor moral character.
More options
Context Copy link
What are these "responsibilities" you speak of, and from where do we get them?
Again, from where does this "should surely not feel guilt" come from?
While it may be unusual for someone to care a lot about the world that will be left behind after they and their children have passed, I don't understand what is particularly bizarre about it. And people who do aren't necessarily even thinking about it in your terms of "responsibility". It may just boil down to their personal values—what they subjectively want, i.e., it's important to them to help build a better world for future generations.
Lots of people have voluntarily given their lives in war for this very reason, even if it amounted to a dismissal of their more immediate "responsibilities"(i.e., their family) per your ethical logic. They're trying to build and leave behind a better world. This is completely understandable and not at all bizarre.
If you're sincerely concerned about the potential for the world to decay into a dystopian idiocracy, there is nothing bizarre about thinking about how we as individuals may contribute to it, and prioritizing that concern over these proximate concentric circles of so called "responsibility".
More options
Context Copy link
If one's first responsibility is to one's genetic legacy (as you suggest) then having any child that is biologically yours is better than having no child, at least from the point of view of your own self-interest.
The problem in this case isn't necessarily that desperate women use donor sperm for one last roll of the dice, it's that they could probably still find someone decent who is amenable to an actual family.
Correct, my perspective is not that such a person should never have a child, it's that they should fix themselves and then have a child.
There are some things that are more or less unfixable, many of which are no one's fault. Physical deformity which is mostly cosmetic is the clearest example of that. There's only so much that even the best plastic and reconstructive surgeons can do, in many cases.
deleted
Decide where you want the ambulances. At least if you're a dude.
What's Eating Gilbert Grape isn't all that bad. I've seen fairly well-put-together people that came out of environments like that. Past that, however...I think you are leaving aside the very real fact that maybe ten percent of people are bad fits for marriage and children. Some of that is their fault, some of it isn't. Things like paranoid schizophrenia or intellectual disability make things very hard indeed. It's like the US military...they reject around 10 percent of people for not having the cognitive or intellectual horsepower to be good janitors or cooks. On the other hand, I've known people that had parents that sucked as human beings - drug addicts, attempted murder, physical abuse - that still turned out OK, so maybe. That is a hell of a compromise to make, though, and I wouldn't blame someone for deciding to remain single rather than be with someone who's 450 pounds, has multiple health problems at 28, and walks with a cane. Or who uses lots of drugs. Or who is straight up psychotic and refuses to acknowledge that she's pregnant. Maybe you can build a life with someone like that, too, but it's playing on nightmare mode.
If you're a woman, it's a bit easier - you're likely to be with someone you're not attracted to (at least initially) but don't have to watch your kids watch someone die to entirely preventable causes. If you're OK with a short guy you can get a guy that's built like a Greek god, or one that makes six figures and is a basically decent guy, even if you're 300 pounds. You don't have to settle for abusive shitbags or drug users. Go to Silicon Valley and you might be able to find a literal millionaire.
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