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 -
The unborn child isn't "another body" until you can separate them and the mother and have them both live, or otherwise enact your desire of protecting the child without involving the mother's body in it.
The state claiming ownership of the unborn child is worse than communism, because communism at least claims things that are not parts of pther people's bodies.
the state isn't claiming ownership of the unborn when they say you can't kill them anymore than they claim ownership of any random adult when they say other adults can't murder them
and the state already claims ownership of your own body even if there is no two body problem, from laws against suicide to laws against consumption of drugs, etc.
it is only this issue where we carve out the exception; seriously, the privacy right concoction used in Roe v. Wade is unhelpful to individuals in any other context
Yes, the law against suicide is a violation of self-ownership as well. We just let it slide because killing yourself makes even less sense to most in the first place than killing your unborn child, so few are threatened by the law. Also obligatory "what are they gonna do, arrest my corpse?".
Drugs we ban because no one wants to become a degenerated drug addict, yet people do, so we infer that people need help staying away from drugs. Also, the problem of violent junkies.
But at the end of the day it is only a lizardman's constant who is pro-life on basis of "saving human lives" (and can be argued with about what a human life is and how far should we go saving them). The rest, I assume, are using abortion bans as a tool to enforce their preferred monogamy-for-life-for-the-purposes-of-procreation social model. I see no point arguing. I wish women were as gung-ho as right-wing men about buying guns and chanting "no step on snake".
No, we don't let it slide. We punish people who attempt it or stop them in the attempt with the law being the explicit justification and authority to do so. There are many more examples of the state claiming ownership of an individual's body when their behavior only affects themselves. Or do we require motorcycle helmets for the protection of the roadside obstacle the motorcyclist will hit? If you want to argue that actually there is some non-de minimus affect on others in some of these examples therefore they're not claiming ownership of an individual, the same could be said about the overwhelming vast majority of abortions well before you can no longer wave away the two-body problem.
There is no point in arguing this because it's simply true; furthermore, most of those who argue this likely support many of these state declarations of ownership over people's bodies. It is only in this special context which they dream up this right or else it's communism.
I, too, wish women would engage in naked power politics more often.
"We let it slide" as in "we allow the suicide law to exist", not "we don't enforce the suicide law".
More options
Context Copy link
Hot!
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