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 -
A lot of people in this country are generally in favor of (some) abortion being legal but are really uncomfortable with the reality of killing a fetus. Blunt language drives some of those people away, while euphemisms help keep them comfortable voting D.
The bailey is "killing a unborn child if its birth is too inconvenient for the mother" the motte is "it's a medical and complex decision to end a pregnancy".
This bailey IS defensible, there are definitely arguments that can convince me there, such as the lack of universally agreed upon distinction between a fetus and a baby and the start of life, edge medical and criminal cases, etc...
But I can certainly imagine there'd be a whole lot more deserters if that side was forced to always fight in the bailey.
I would have more intellectual respect for some pro-choice activists if they came out and said "Yes, I support killing the unborn child on the mother's request even if it is a child and not just a fetus, because I value the mother's choice over the child's life". And I would have more intellectual respect for some pro-life activists if they came out and said "Yes, one of the main reasons why I am pro-life is because I am against female promiscuity and/or I am religious, not just because I actually care about the life of the child". Alas though, we are where we are.
I believe this is known as the Violinist Argument.
As I've written before here, the Violinist Argument does a very poor job, gets intentionality exactly backwards, and mostly serves to trigger people's disgust response at a secret cabal of shadowy figures being allowed to kidnap innocent, unrelated individuals in order to strap them to a machine and 'suck the life force out of them'. Zero percent of people are capable of suspending their disbelief enough to actually imagine that you "just wake up" one day and some random process of the universe put you in that situation. As such, it actually tells us very little about how people view bodily autonomy.
My preferred analogy is rock climbing. When two people go rock climbing, they intend to have a little fun. They 'hook up', using the best safety equipment possible, intending to make the probability of an issue be as low as possible. But Murphy's law happens, snake eyes come up, and your partner ends up dangling at the end of a rope attached to you. Maybe that rope is causing you a little discomfort; maybe it's threatening minor rope burn; maybe it's threatening one of your limbs; maybe it's threatening your life. Lots of possible variations to handle a variety of scenarios people want for abortion. I don't think people are nearly as likely to say that you can choose to pull out your pocket knife and intentionally cut the rope, knowing that it will surely lead to your partner's death, completely regardless of what the danger is, all the way to the case where there is literally no real danger, just that they are relying on you to not cut the rope. This gets intentionality the right way 'round and also neatly handles the question of contraceptive use to reduce the probability of the undesired outcome, as well as the question of danger to the physical body of the woman. This should be an easy bullet to bite for any people who think they genuinely hold an extremely strong view of bodily autonomy.
I'll be stealing that analogy; it is much stronger and more relatable (and has probably been actually realized at some point!) than the violinist.
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
I'm reminded of a clip I saw of Bill Maher who said something along the lines of "Conservatives are right, abortion is killing a baby, and I'm OK with that. We need to be honest about it". And all his guest were just emoting some form of "Oh Bill.... no....".
Here is the clip.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XQvB55pAFy0
I dunno, I prefer the pro-murder/anti-woman framing more than I like the pro-choice/pro-life one, since it obviates the "what's a life" and "is deformity X worthy of life" questions the pro-choice faction wants to dance around and makes more salient the "are miscarriages murder?" point that our tendency to regulate literally everything inexorably leads us to.
Of course, because my answer to both of those questions tends toward "no" it's going to come into conflict with the people who answer those questions with "yes", and it is the side that will answer "yes" to those questions that has control of the framing. (Obviously the pro-choice people think it's a life, that's why they depend on the excuses to rationalize it.)
I mean, if you are pro-life, obviously youd prefer this because the anti-woman frame collapses quickly under scrutiny.
I am not pro-life.
You're ignoring that female privilege is ultimately what holds that frame up. Removing privilege from any group is by definition anti-that-group.
The truth is that honoring that privilege necessitates you being OK with baby murder, just like when men use the privilege of self-defense to kill people that attack them [as opposed to specifically pro-choice women, who are also most likely to insist that criminals have the right to not be killed when they try to rob or kill you because it's involuntary... exactly like an [unwanted] baby does].
Which is kind of why the "principled exceptions" are the way that they are- an exception for rape pregnancies bestows upon the victim the privilege to not suffer/support a forced pregnancy, fine before X weeks bestows the privilege to exempt people who can't afford to be (or can't for medical reasons) pregnant from pregnancy, an exception for birth defects serious enough to render the baby incompatible with normal life that the body doesn't auto-abort bestows the privilege for parents to evade a bad roll of the cosmic dice, and an exception for incest touches both 1 and 3. That's also why the non-selfish anti-woman charities tend to focus on fixing the second one, because 1, 3, and to a point 4 are a lot less controversial (1 and 4 are mostly solved by implantable birth control and Plan B; condemning 3 is not so much anti-woman as it is anti-parent, and people who are anti-woman also tend to be pro-parent).
Maybe its just me, but I am having difficulty understanding your post.
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