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 notion that that someone's life matters less if nature wants them dead.
The argument "We don't have enough resources to save everyone" falls flat when made by someone who had the opportunity to get enough resources and chose not to.
The specific group isn't relevant to my argument, because when that lack of compassion is applied, it has a tendency to spread. That was the point Niemöller was trying to make.
Actually, there are anti-retrovirals which will make someone carrying HIV not spread it. However, even if that were not the case, saving a life is good.
Explain to me how my statement implied this. Is the contention here that triage by its very nature, of prioritizing the saving of lives that are more likely to be saved, pushes the principle that someone's life matters less if nature wants them dead? Are you against the very concept of triage?
This, again, just makes me think you're trolling, and I'm wasting my time.
It would. Is the example we're talking about one such case? There's plenty of discussion that could be had about that.
If that's the point, then it's either a vapid one or an awful one. Society has routinely applied lack of compassion to groups without having it spread. Today, we show a lack of compassion to convicted 1st degree murderers with respect to their desire to live outside of a prison (we show them greater than zero compassion, of course, but, also of course, literally zero compassion was never in discussion - again, rounding up those who have promiscuous dangerous sex or use intravenous drugs into death camps was never in discussion), and I disagree with the contention that this means that there's a danger that it would spread. Of course, with a loose enough definition of "spread," you can argue that it would and does, but with such a loose definition, that "spread" is utterly meaningless and not worth considering.
That's a fantastic point you could make for why we should give aid to the people in discussion. That point has literally nothing to do with the argument you made in the above comment relying on the slippery slope argument.
So, again, is your contention that triage just shouldn't be a thing? Literally everyone agrees that saving a life is good. We lack enough resources to save every life all the time, and the discussion here is about prioritization.
I'll also note here that not a single comment I made implies, in any way, that I would be for leaving these people to die. Personally, though I see where hydroacetylene is coming from, I find the notion of just letting these people die to be ethically... questionable at best, monstrous at worst, given the resources I believe we have at hand. But I find your objection to it to be even more detestable than hydroacetylene's comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link