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 -
In broad strokes, yes. But they aren't all as lockstep as you seem to be implying: Dobbs was handed down when the Blue Team held control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and even heard some Republicans offer to cross the aisle, yet no bill to codify these rights could be passed. Some point to cynicism trying to make an issue out of it for the election (possibly true in part), but there is also a lot of disagreement of what the terms to be codified would be: which trimesters, which exceptions, and so forth. Previous precedent didn't require elected representatives to take stances on these. Late term abortions are, IIRC pretty uncommon and very unpopular, but also sometimes medically indicated. And I say that as someone who generally accepts "safe, legal, and rare:" every abortion is tragic, but sometimes it's the least bad choice.
"Safe, legal, and rare" has been an intellectually dishonest (or at least lazy) opinion to hold for several decades now. There are over a million abortions every year in the US, vs. ~3.5 childbirths annually, it's anything but "rare."
I think one can very well believe that the number of abortions is tragic and bad without going all the way to full-pro-life. The people in my life who hold the safe, legal, and rare position hold that there are way too many abortions, using abortion as a form of birth control without taking proper precautions beforehand is immoral, and often support bans consistent with the global average of 12-15 weeks. The US is an outlier with its extremes on abortion (particularly in the permissive direction; the left-wing view of abortions in the US is incredibly uncommon globally), but there is definitely a view in between the pro-life and pro-choice coalition that represents a huge chunk of the electorate but is politically disenfranchised.
There's also a poster, sorry I don't remember the name, who's sympathetic to pro-life concerns but believes enforcing any abortion law with exceptions creates a dangerous legal environment that would be impossible to justly enforce, while a no-exeptions law goes too far for them. I find that an intellectually consistent and well-reasoned position, even if I disagree with it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link