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 -
Laugh it up, while you still can.
Is it really extrapolating much to assume that the system in your car that's mandated by the State to know and record your position, speed and have the ability to turn off the engine could also prevent you from doing other things that are not in the interest of the State that aren't specifically mandated by the bill? Are slopes ever slippery?
I'd attempt to fix the analogy with HT to make it more accurate, but that book's setting never really made any practical sense. Patriarchal theocracy already exists and it doesn't really look like that bourgeois rape fantasy. It's just Islam. Women are right to be afraid of its resurgence in the west, but the way the story frames it misses too much about the reasons that make that sort of society arise to be of any use except as agitprop.
Would be tyrants of both theocratic and modernist flavors do exist.
Meanwhile, on reddit, a conversation like this is happening:
I'm not speaking in any sort of loaded language here like this fictitious quote, but even if we remove that from the equation, it seems to me that women who want to retain secure and uncontested rights to abortion are right to be concerned at the moves their political opponents are making and right to think that the ultimate goal is to restrict their license.
I'd contest the low resolution idea that the "party" (presumably the GOP) would actually advance that political agenda significantly, but some people are indeed trying to do this and making moves to make it easier for them to do so, it's no hallucination.
I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Why deride people being aware that politics have an important influence on their life? We're not in the 90s anymore, endless present and liberal consensus is not the order of the day.
Simply that the syllogism:
Does not, in general, hold. Fantasizing about "they are going to take away the wilderness" makes perhaps even less sense than fantasizing about project 2025; at least that is an actual report produced by an actual think tank rather than a motte comment about what the out group is going to do next.
This is just "the slippery slope fallacy exists".
The logic is perfectly sound if you are able to find legitimate argument that the "political opponents" have a desire or interest to do Y, or that X is materially conducive to Y.
In both examples, there is plentiful evidence for both propositions.
Requiring strict proofs for suspicion of political activity is a stupid and idiotic policy that can only lead you to be ineffectual at the actual game being played.
You sound like a conservative defending civil unions for homosexuals on the ground that there is no evidence they will lead to marriage. If you want to be as politically ineffectual as that, be my guest. But I prefer to deal with the world as it is.
There is in fact zero evidence that anyone wants to enact the handmaidens tale or take the wilderness away from people. Speed limiters (which I think are dumb btw) are totally unrelated to that goal, in the same way that abortion restrictions are totally unrelated to making women into chattel.
Please don't be that bad faith here. There is extensive evidence that people want to curtail freedom of movement for various social planning reasons and extensive evidence that people want to restrict abortion rights for religious reasons.
Just because you decide to phrase it in hyperbole and made up hypotheticals doesn't refute that. It should tell your something that you have to distort the point that much.
H... Hyperbole? I'm literally quoting the guy in this thread for one point and the leftist protesters for the other point. If your point is that "abortion curtailment -> women are chattel" is a bad faith argument, take it up with your nearest college campus.
Also the "curtailing freedom of movement" evidence is (entirely? Almost entirely?) actually curtailment of freedom of driving through city centers. However, people moved around for a hundred thousand years before they could drive through a city center, so in some sense I am actually more partial to the "women as chattel" catastrophism.
I don't understand how you could possibly think this isn't an argument in favor of the slippery thesis.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link