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 -
This is the biggest reality. I remember that around the time of Obergefell, I was taking neuroscience classes and also sitting in on some queer theory classes. The former was relevant to my professional work/interests, and the latter was me just seeing this strange movement brewing and wanting to discover if there was any there there (spoiler: there wasn't really). In any event, my queer theory prof made a point of declaring agnosticism concerning whether sexual orientation was biologically determined (and one of our first readings was an article titled "What's wrong with be(com)ing queer?"). Around the same time, I was seeing in neuroscience some actual science on the topic of pair bonding/infidelity, what was there, what was really lacking, and just what sort of things were considered scientific evidence in the general area.
So, in that context, I'm sitting in a bar, having a drink with my friends. The topic comes up somewhat related to the whole homosexuality/gay marriage thing. I just ever so gently wonder if mayyyyyybe we don't have settled science telling us that sexual orientation is biologically determined, that mayyyyyybe we don't have some set of utterly conclusive scientific experiments demonstrating that people are "born that way" (of course, it could totally be true, but maybe it just hasn't been shown conclusively). Lemme tell ya, for people who are usually pretty rigorous about logical, scientific arguments, the looks on their faces were more, "How could someone even entertain the possibility," than, "Oh, well clearly you're just not aware of these three papers which conclusively show..." In one moment, one experience, I viscerally knew that they had not been reasoned into their position on homosexuality, like at all. It's hard to feel this in your bones without experiencing it, but when you do, you won't forget it. These positions are not being taken because of objective logic and reason. There are other forces at work.
More options
Context Copy link