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 -
I would be hard pressed to answer this survey, because I believe that the Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuits were determined correctly, but also that no business has a right to turn away an LGBT person from receiving the same service as everyone else.
I am pretty anti-LGBT, as that goes today. I don't believe that two members of the same sex can be married in the same sense of the word "marriage" as I use when I say my marriage, my parents', grandparents', or great grandparents' marriage. Homosexual marriage is just talking about a completely different thing that can't even accidentally turn into the referent I mean.
If I was a wedding photographer and someone wanted me to photograph a gay wedding, I would want the right to refuse based on I don't believe the two events are even similar. It would be the equivalent of if I were a professional photographer that specialized in Christian First Communions, Confirmations, and Baptisms, then refused to be hired to photograph a Satanic Mass desecrating those things. "But the government says they are both equivalent religious expressions!" I don't care.
I'm pretty pro-LGBT, as far as that would have gone in the 80s or earlier. People deserve healthcare, non-discrimination in the necessities of daily life, security in their homes and jobs. I believe homosexuality is largely due to forces outside people's control. Having those attractions is not a moral failure. All of these would have been radical a hundred years ago, now they are the bare minimum of decency that only the smallest, most fringe groups would deny. The LGBT movement won there. Can they accept that victory and move on?
This is also my point of view, but I add to it that I'm skeptical most of the LGBT-identification among young people is the sort of homosexuality that is largely due to forces outside people's control. It seems pretty clear that social contagion can shift people's sexual orientation or at least move them to decreased revulsion towards sexual activity they once may have found unappealing. My impression is that there's a small subset -- maybe 1, 2% -- that is gay due to developmental or neonatal factors, with maybe some genetic predisposion factors in there that we just don't understand. But that's wildly different from the much higher rates not only of LGBT identification but LGBT activity among younger people. And it absolutely changes the state of the debate over things like gay marriage if only a very small part of the population is gay than if a much larger proportion is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link