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 -
So basically we would no longer be human in any real sense? We evolved for gender roles to facilitate procreation with quite distinct personality traits.
The world you describe gender becomes completely non-existent. A female and male me could not be the same person. At that point we have just eliminated gender and at that point I think we have evolved past humanity and are some other kind of intelligent algorithm.
I feel like the term algorithm is odd here since we'd still have biological bodies and flesh etc... just swapping genders. This has happened before, certain species evolve into other species that are able to swap genders, be hermaphrodites etc. The only difference is intentional evolution vs natural evolution. Life always changes its form, staying static is the opposite of what living beings do.
This kind of reasoning strikes me as odd. Is evolution and change in life only valid when it's supposed to help procreation? If so, what is the point of art, or enjoying life, or anything besides procreation?
Is changing our gender roles actually enough to make us die out as a species, and be outcompeted? I am highly skeptical of that.
Isn’t gender just the software that controls your flesh - basically an algorithm. Like the matrix touched on this where they could see the processes in the human mind to see the decisions being made.
This view of humanity seems exactly like an algorithm.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Survival is the terminal goal of all life. Existence has to be sustained or it stops.
In material terms the reason for all these behaviors is procreation and facilitation thereof. How art in particular does so is a deep topic (my take is that it is the best way to communicate predictive heuristics), but ultimately it still serves that purpose or is a temporary waste of energy.
You can of course imagine that this is or isn't the "point", but that's entirely immaterial to why it exists.
Given all (modulo a handful of contested sociologist fakes) known human societies prior to modernity shared them, it's unknown if human societies are sustainable at all without. The trends in birth rates in the modern Western experiment make me skeptical that this can be achieved.
if procreation is so important then why do so many people not want to procreate? I think you are just projecting your opinion on everyone else and think they are misguided if they don't act accordingly.
What people want or claim to want is completely irrelevant to the sustainability of their actual behavior.
If you don't do what is necessary to keep existing you stop doing so. The popularity or ethics of suicide do not change this reality. Antinatalism is doomed to irrelevance by construction.
Note that none of these claims are normative. I haven't even expressed my "opinion" on this matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Birthrate trends are probably selecting the middle classes of modern countries for clannishness, natality, and dogmatism, and the underclasses for impulsivity and promiscuity, in part due to the breakdown in gender roles. Feel like it should be pointed out as a side effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link