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 went to university in norther Europe and in my 6 years of being there I can only remember one guys who had the combo of very nice facial aesthetics, stem PHD level of intelligence, athleticism and above 190 height, and he had an alcoholic father who drank himself to death. I think you are overestimating how many men who are actually this attractive and the ease by which a plain 35 yo woman can have unprotected sex with them.
These women have well paying jobs and often extended family who will help and support them. Im not so sure they will need more government assistance than many other "average" families. Granted we are in Europe where the social safety net is wide and parental leave policies are generous and daycare cheap. But again, this is something that all families benefit from.
"With a rather aesthetically displeasing mother it is likely the child will inherit some unfortunate mutations." Well, by this reasoning they would be much worse off if they would have procreated with their "looksmatch" and the children would have inherited twice the amount of unfortunate mutations.
I know...hmm. maybe one guy that fits this bill, in my medical school class of 150. He's no model, but he's 6'4" and above average looking. If you're willing to allow six-footers, there's another guy.
More options
Context Copy link
The cost of a three bedroom house, the taxes required for school and medical care, plus the insurance to cover if anything were to happen are astronomical. Most people can't do it on two incomes. This has to be done while raising a child, which is immensely time-consuming. Are these women so rich that they can pause their careers and take a long parental leave, or are they dumping their kid in a daycare three weeks after birth? Most people with high incomes are workaholics.
The margins of error are much smaller in a single parent household. If she gets sick, if she dies or if she loses her job there is no good backup plan. There are two grandparents instead of four. There are half as many uncles and cousins.
Which is why we have high taxes and a dysfunctional power grid. The tax money is wasted on being an insurance company for people who make deliberately awful life choices instead of actually achieving things. A government insurance system in which more or less anyone who shows up can take benefits without demands is bound to fail. Insurance companies require people to lock their doors and hire electricians to install wires. Otherwise, they wouldn't last.
Fundamentally we have a major issue with child mortality being low allowing for extreme dysgenics.
That is one hell of a bullet to bite there. That genie is not going to get stuffed back into the bottle, at least not to the extent it was two hundred years ago. African peasants, at least the ones we have half-decent data for, suffer much lower child mortality than kings and queens in the eighteenth century. The germ theory of disease, vaccination, and antibiotics absolutely beat the living shit out of infant and youth mortality. We might lose the second two through civilizational collapse, but even literal illiterate backwoods rednecks in America know that germs cause disease.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link