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 -
Why would the religion of the perpetrator make a difference in the poster's moral proclamation?
Because it's a way to make concrete a claim about abstract principles. The obvious next question is "what do you think should be done about it?"
"Infant circumcision is a human rights violation" "Judaism is founded on a ritual that is a human rights violation" and "Circumcision should be banned, and Jews who continue the practice should be jailed" are three distinct statements, and it's instructive to see how far someone is willing to ride this particular train.
If one truly believes that it's a human rights violation, then following it through to jailing those who practice it seems like a reasonable conclusion regardless of what cultural practice is hung up on doing it.
Human sacrifice was a much more common religious practice at some point in history too. Eventually practitioners were jailed or exiled enough to greatly reduce its prevalence. I'm sure there were people asking, "do you really think the Aztecs are committing human rights violations by sacrificing to the sun god?"
The only way to answer it is with the chad yes.
As mentioned recently, this is why I'm not a liberal any more. "human rights" doesn't trace back to a set of objective facts, it's a label intended for use in coordinating use of force, and it can and is applied entirely arbitrarily, even to the point of self-contradiction.
Liberalism of this sort is breathtakingly stupid, astonishingly dangerous, and utterly ubiquitous.
It's stupid, because it assumes order and social structure for the foundation of an argument intended to prosecute arbitrary divisions of order and social structure; it's taking a concept intrinsically designed to be applied to the margins and aiming it at the center and expecting everything to work out fine.
It's dangerous because it encourages people to initiate and escalate conflicts they can't actually win.
It's ubiquitous because it's the basic social technology our whole society runs on, and that the majority of people have no defense against.
Liberalism takes it as axiomatic that "Religion" and "Human Rights" and "Freedom" are conceptual primitives. When that turns out to be false, it has no Plan B.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link