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 abortion debate in my opinion is the single noisiest debate there is. I feel overwhelmed when I think of the magnitude of the gap in inferential distance between the two sides and that there are so many edge cases and irreconcilable moral/semantic distinctions across multiple layers of the debate. Its like;
Level 0: Does God exist?
Level 1: What does it mean to be alive?
Level n: Can we agree that abortion is killing a baby or not?
Level TANGENT: Is killing wrong all the time?
Level >n: Can we agree that abortion is right/wrong in some circumstances?
Level >>n: Can we agree that abortion is good/bad on net?
Level >>>>n: What should the government do with that conundrum?
Most people are not armed with the IQ, the clarity of mind, the understanding of logic, ethics, philosophy, etc. To even flesh out their own points let alone their opponents points. And have those points not only be consistent across the levels of inference, but be consistent with other beliefs and moral intuitions they hold.
The sentiment you are describing above is one such instance of that. People being made to have an opinion on something they have no business having an opinion on. It's all noise and no signal.
And I say this not because I disagree, but that statement is just about incompatible with any set of moral intuitions just about anywhere. Either killing babies is wrong and we don't do it, or killing babies is okay and its okay to kill children too under the consent of the mother, or its not killing babies because its okay and killing babies is not okay?
This is a debate that only Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed can solve. Not the debate 101 class (even if they're from Harvard) and least of all policy makers.
I'm just waiting for technology that can sustain a baby at any point of development outside of the womb to become viable, cheap and widespread. The only other option is to resurrect God, playing God might be the next best thing.
I'm skeptical that this would change the contours of the debate much. Most of the on-the-ground pro-choice arguments are about the negative effects of raising a child on the woman. If all of a sudden would-be mothers weren't obligated to carry the child, there'd still be a bunch of salt about being responsible for the post-fetal child (see: legal paternity surrender/paper abortions). And the principled bodily autonomy argument would still stand: extracting the fetus for the incubation chamber would still be invasive of the childbearer's body (though perhaps no more so than an abortion itself).
Extracting a first trimester fetus would presumably be a lot less invasive than giving birth, though. I agree that artificial wombs would not settle the abortion debate, but I do think they'd settle several of the arguments that motivate the debate -- although certainly not all of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link