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 fairly sure experimental heart surgery isn't conducted on children without their parent's informed consent, and a refusal to subject children to experimental heart surgery isn't a basis for taking children away from the parents.
That is an entirely different objection, and at least in the UK, doctors have the ability to override parental decisions if deemed in the best interest of parents, especially if the child agrees. And the definition of child here is 16 and below, no line in the sand, as long as the doctors think they're able to understand the risks and benefits.
In less politicized contexts, if not heart surgery, kids can be taken away if their parents are doing an egregiously bad job at handling their health.
This is all true, and for all the many failings of British governance, things seem to work fine here.
I make no comment on whether or not gender affirming care is something that should be treated in this manner, only that the previous standard suggested was poorly formed.
Indeed, in the UK we admit that capability to make informed decisions does not start at some arbitrary birthday but is more fluid and depends on maturity of a person. This is mostly about some minor treatments such as morning-after-pill or HPV vaccine which is for their own benefit. I expect that a healthcare professional would be more strict in cases when a minor is asking for treatment that has great potential of harm. Then it would go to the court and the court most likely would say that wanting a treatment that harms is the evidence that the person does not have the capability to make an informed decision or something like that :)
More options
Context Copy link
And your analogy for it being poorly formed was poor.
Most analogies are imperfect, few things are perfectly isomorphic to other things. I stand by mine as relevant and useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link