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 key point Scott was getting at is that your technically correct usage of words isn't debating in good-faith - you're trying to substitute word play for substantive argument. If you were arguing in good faith, you would be spending more time trying to show the meaningful similarity between surrogacy and conventional forms of human trafficking. For example, you might argue that gay couples are all pedophiles, so any instance in which they can pay someone money to become a child's legal guardian is human trafficking. I would reject that claim to be true, but at least it's arguing in good faith about whether we should think of surrogacy (in this case, at least) as human trafficking.
Oh, he's paying parents to part with their children and let him be their legal guardian instead?
We could certainly debate whether or not paying parents to part with their children is always unethical (the archetypal case seems to be a rich person buying a poor person's child, which could be analogized in some way to Souperism in the cases that consent matters), but I don't think it's inherently obvious that all cases of this are unethical, just the typical case. I have no idea how exceptional a parent Bill Gates might be, nor how much he might care for the kids he gets this way.
Regardless, let's suppose that it's immoral for Bill Gates is immoral for doing this. How does this get us to the immorality of surrogacy? I would argue that your example isn't that. You're alluding to parent-child relationships that wouldn't exist in the way we typically describe when we talk about surrogacy. We can talk about how the surrogate can get postpartum depression after birthing a child they can't see as easily as if it were their own, but this is a known issue and it looks like people are already aware and trying to minimize how much it happens.
More options
Context Copy link