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 -
Even having to play devil's advocate, the response seems pretty easy to me, because the argument Dave Barnhart made is incredibly self-refuting. He's not listed good reasons to support abortion. He's listed good reasons to oppose abortion and inexplicably framed these good reasons as bad.
"Thank you for pointing out how easy it is to advocate for the unborn. How undemanding they are. How morally obvious. And how even those without money, power or privilege are just as capable of advocating for and protecting the unborn as the rich, powerful and privileged are. But this only raises the question of why you, despite recognising how easy and morally uncomplicated it is to advocate for them, still fail to do so."
Yeah this could do with some editing to make it slightly snappier but it's not my argument, so that's best left as an exercise for an adherent.
As for the second paragraph, it would be less snappy, but you can just respond to that by saying there's no reason to only care about one thing. Does someone who cares about the poor therefore not care about the sick? No. So why exclusively apply such reasoning to someone who cares about the unborn?
I suppose the basic message here is that there’s neither bravery nor value in doing things that are easy. Difficult and worthy endeavors are to be taken up precisely because they are difficult. Or something like that.
That was my argument against the "I punch Nazis" movement of the late 2010's. It turns out no one wants to hear it.
More options
Context Copy link
If Barnhart thinks that a cause has to be difficult and brave to be worthwhile, then maybe he should switch to an even harder, more controversial cause than the poor, sick, or homeless. So why not advocate for Nazis instead? In reality, nobody, including Barnhart, decides what causes to support on that basis.
More options
Context Copy link
From which it logically follows that advocating for a group which is easy to advocate for in addition to a group which is difficult to advocate for is more difficult than advocating for just the latter group and paying the former group no mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link