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 -
Oh come on. I just got told how evil and unprogressive it is to not leave other people alone, and let them pursue happiness as best as they see fit. Other than full anarchists, everyone puts some limits on other people pursuing happiness, hell even anarchists do when it infringes on the rights of others. If someone is actually making an argument for why a practice is wrong, you should address those arguments, not moralize about "pursuing happiness".
Yes, we impose some limits on the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, we impose a fairly specific and somewhat constrained set of limits, mostly based on long tradition. That is very different that imposing novel and arbitrary limits by fiat.
People generally obey the current laws. this does not imply that changing the laws to make some large percentage of them criminals if they do not drastically change their behavior will cause them to conform to the new laws. Instead, they will probably fight you. This might be worth it if the heretofore-tolerated behavior is as odious as chattel slavery, but to the extent that "odious" is a free-floating label subject to arbitrary manipulation, it is also an existential threat to anyone living in a values-diverse society.
I am not moralizing about "pursuing happiness". I am pointing out that adherence to the law is a peace treaty, and sufficiently arbitrary laws violate that treaty.
No persuasive argument for why the practice is wrong has been presented, only expressions of personal disgust. The case for serious harm is a non-starter, when so many men who have in fact been circumcised do not perceive themselves to be seriously harmed by the practice. The best argument is that children can't consent, but our system is not built on the presumption that newborns get a say in anything, to the point that we not only flirt but aggressively hands-under-clothes make out with the idea of literal infanticide. It is the norm that parents make decisions for their children, and while there are some exceptions to that norm in the case of egregious mistreatment, expanding those exceptions arbitrarily destroys the norm and everything it supports. And as it turns out, the norm supports an awful lot, because while Orthodox Jews aren't a massive section of the population, Christians are, and we are under no illusions that our own practices will not be next in line for prohibition at gunpoint.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link