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 -
I am circumcised, and on the balance wish that I were not. I support routine infant circumcision.
None that preclude a healthy, productive, satisfying life in its absence. "but it would be so much better if they still had it" is not a persuasive argument to me.
I do not believe you can demonstrate a significant difference in population-level outcomes.
These are extremely rare. Many cultural practices involve rare risks, many of them significantly worse than these.
Here's my question for you: There is a religion with deep roots in our society that considers male infant circumcision to be an integral part of their religious practice, a literal command from God. If circumcision were banned, how should these people respond, in your view?
The rate of serious problems is debated. For instance, Intactivists say stuff like this
"Study design has an effect on the estimation of complication rates. Prospective studies, in which complications are tracked going forward from the circumcision via follow-up examinations, theoretically should capture the incidence of complications most accurately.[11] On the other hand, retrospective studies typically rely on a review of patient charts, a form of data that was recorded for a purpose other than research. Inaccuracies in the medical record (e.g. the not uncommon possibility that the complication was not charted in the first place) tend to lead to underestimation of complication incidence.[12] Even less reliable are retrospective database studies which can only capture events that have had an actual diagnostic or procedure code listed upon discharge.[E.g. 13] It has been estimated that database studies may miss up to 90-95% of complications.[14]"
There are some studies showing a significant difference. Here's a list:
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/psychological-impact/
Autism is 5 times more prevalent in the United States than in Europe, some people think MGM might have something to do with it.
We used to perform other surgeries on babies without anesthetic, do you think that had a long term effect on their psychologies? From Wikipedia: "It is now accepted that the neonate responds more extensively to pain than the adult does, and that exposure to severe pain, without adequate treatment, can have long-term consequences." Do you think science is just generally wrong about this? It seems to me like the idea that torturing babies has long term psychological consequences is just obviously what we should predict based on priors. Are you really skeptical?
There are a lot of Jews who do a religious ritual called the Brit Shalom instead. Religions give up stuff all the time; I think the transition would be easier than you imagine. What percentage of Mormons still practice polygamy? Catholics no longer say that people who commit suicide go to hell. Etc etc etc.
More options
Context Copy link
The most contrarian position!
By not doing it anymore -- same as people who believe the same about female circumcision. If they can figure out a way to get out of stoning their rebellious children, I have every faith that their best lawyers will be able to find a way around the commandment to cut off part of their babies' healthy penises.
And if they don't desist?
I guess in that case we should treat people who mutilate their baby boys' genitals the same way we treat the people who mutilate their baby girls' genitals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm curious as to how serious you think this issue is. If they do not move and do not desist, what penalties do you think are worth enforcing in an attempt to get them to comply?
...Let me phrase it a different way. We could say "fine them ten bucks". Suppose they shrug, pay the fine, and continue with the practice. So we could say "fine them a hundred bucks". Suppose they shrug and pay the fine, and and continue the practice. We implement a stronger penalty, they continue to ignore, evade or accept the penalty. What penalty is sufficiently strict that further penalties aren't worth it, even if they do not comply?
I guess the same penalties that would be applied if they cut off any other part of their healthy baby's bodies.
More options
Context Copy link
The answer to this is the same as any regulation in the modern state. There is no limit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll answer: they should suck it up because we shouldn't be making laws based around religious commandments. Their children are not property or slaves for them to make irreversible choices for. What's wrong with a standard, reddit-tier "argument for gay marriage" or bastardized "separation of church and state" argument in this scenario?
I'd like to make that argument as a top-level post, I think.
Suppose they don't want to suck it up, and are unwilling to comply with these laws. What penalties are reasonable for flouting such a law, in your view? How hard should we work to enforce such a ban?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link