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 -
That's not the same thing.
But often they don't make the same decision their child would have if mature. Many parents attempt to override their child's decisions even after their child is mature.
No, I think that clears the higher bar.
On the other hand, if a child, upon finding out that meat is made out of dead animals, desires to adopt a plant-only diet, and their parents approve, I would not override their decision, even though many non-Adventist-influenced experts doubt that it is wise.
They said the same thing about kings once....
As above, so below.
But they aren't deciding for themselves! They are deciding for another person! In the purest form of libertarianism, the child would decide everything for themselves.
I am not advocating for pure libertarianism, but that is what I mean by 'your children aren't your property.' The base state isn't parents having absolute power over their children, it's them having no authority whatsoever. All power accorded to parents is a creation of society.
Yeah, that's why I said "not directly". Point remains if a parent makes a mistake they'll usually by wrecked with guilt, for the doctor it's tuesday.
If you mean something more than disagreeing with them and putting some social pressure, than I agree it crosses a line. Luckily the law is on the adult child's side in such cases.
Cool. So it just so happens that this blog post was talking about the exact same drug - down to the brand name - that gender clinics sell as "puberty blockers", the first line of medical intervention that they recommend for the youngest children, and claim is completely reversible. Funnily enough data from UK's Tavistok indicates that as many as 48% of kids referred to a gender clinic are autistic, so this is giving the exact same drug to a largely the same cohort. The only difference is the disorder they aim to cure, but both disorders are wishy-washy and not objectively verifiable (I guess autism might be, in the more extreme cases, but that's a point against gender affirming care).
If there's an argument for the government forbidding the doctor to administer it in one case but not the other, I'm not seeing it.
What can I say? If you want to live in platonic / marxist utopia where all children belong to the state, you're free to want it. I even wish that you get to live in the society you desire, as long as you don't go full Jihadi, and claim that this is the one true way for all of the world to live. This is why asked how are your ideas not based on your non-universal ideology.
If you actually believed that this means parents have no authority over their children, you'd be quoting Rousseau, not the American founding fathers.
Yes, that's my point. If you were advocating pure libertarianism, I could consider your idea of removing all authority from parents, and ensuring the child's autonomy. But since you don't, the idea is completely absurd to me. If parents have no authority over their children, than an adult has even less authority over another unrelated adult.
I'm not talking about mistakes but conflicts of interests; 'parent has ideology with which child does not agree, makes decision based on that ideology, causes suffering to child, refuses to consider that they may have been wrong.'
That'll larn me to skim the article -- I thought they were talking about surgery!
In the case of puberty blockers, I would only intervene insofar as to ensure that the child and parents had at least heard the counterargument to their proposal; I could see applying the same argument to gender transition.
Again, children aren't property. Not belonging to their parents doesn't mean that they must belong to someone else, it means that they belong to themselves; whatever authority we give to parents starts from zero even if it doesn't stay there.
I was quoting the Declaration as opposition to the divine right of kings.
"As above, so below" was the extrapolation to the divine right of parents.
The idea of something between 'pure libertarianism' and 'status quo' is absurd to you?
A having authority over Bs personal decisions is not the same thing as A having authority over B's authority over C. A parent has every right to forbid their child from making unreasonable demands of their younger sibling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel obligated to point out that, according to one prominent libertarian, under an ideal libertarian framework (1) the parent would have absolute authority over the child, but (2) the child would have the option to assert self-ownership and emancipate himself at any time by leaving the parent's household.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link