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 -
39% of adults in which age group? Or 39% died being unmarried and/or never having been married? And if we go back to 1800 or 1700 or 1200, how do those numbers look? (It might seem bizarre by modern standards to consider 1900 particularly progressive, but if you compare it to the general trend of history it mostly is.) Also what about particular subsets of society who almost constitute their own society? How many Mormon adults in 1900 were unmarried? Or Muslims? How about in the middle Ottoman Empire (as the late one actually did have reported increasing amounts of romantic instability, being in decline and all)? Or pre-Meiji Japan? (Just random examples off of the top of my head.)
Plus, at the very least, 39% (assuming the age group involved is relatively young) is still a lot better than the modern numbers.
This survey from 2015 shows 66% of Mormons married, better than your general population numbers from 1900, and they enjoy all of the benefits of modern technology/society while being pretty heavily integrated with it and without much insulation from its general romantic/sexual rot and decline. So while they're not anywhere close to almost universality, that number still suggests that getting a lot closer to there isn't even necessarily that difficult if you have the institutional will.
(For more specific historical examples, it's worth noting that exact kind of traditional societies that had nearly universal marriage would have likely existed before the advent of modern demographic statistics. It's also worth noting that if you have nearly universal marriage, even if you have modern statistics, the concept of marriage rate as a statistic wouldn't seem to make much sense/have much relevance, same as we don't particularly put much emphasis on the rate of people who have two thumbs, even though some don't.)
More options
Context Copy link