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 -
Not to pile on to a totally unrelated thread as I do just that; but a conception that allows both views (and which I think is true in most cases) is anti-abortion as a cultural signifier.
Ie, most compelled-birthers (probably) have no real concept of what a fetus is and (probably )do not believe in their hearts that an embryo is alive (which we can observe from the prevalence of abortions among anti-abortionists being only marginally smaller than everyone else of their race and class).
It's not that they are doing it to own the libs, it's that they are doing it because they have to do it to be part of the club, style of thing.
Please do elaborate on this:
Abortions do not generally decrease in a given area or among a given population in correlation with their religious beliefs or political beliefs (not in all cases; eg. seventh day Adventists and JW's and orthodox jews have WAY less abortions.)
So, if you are a white woman who is firmly upper middle class, you are exactly as likely on a population level to have an abortion weather you are an evangelical republican or a satanic communist.
The only people who actually poll for this or collect the information are (naturally) pro choice NGOs and certain states (Guttmacher, state of Texas, and so on) but it is enough to be a revealed preference type of thing, imo. It is hard to collect and noisy data though.
I'd be willing to bet that's incorrect.
You can search out the data from some polling agencies; which generally agree with me (hence me believing it) or you can go off of anecdotes from workers at abortion clinics; but that is all there is and the data is such that if you gave me even one even Trafalgar survey saying otherwise I would return to neutral.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Compelled birth". Ah, the amount of new horror scare terms being dredged up by the baby-killers (you don't mind that term, do you? sauce for the goose and all that) in order to sow fear and terror is wonderfully creative, in a twisted way.
Yes, the horrible forced-birthers are lurking around, jumping out to kidnap women, tie them down to a surgical bed, do IVF on them without their consent, implant embryos in them and then wait around for nine months until they can then force their victims to deliver the baby without any anaethesia or pain relief at all.
It'd make a great B-movie.
(Because of course it's not that two people voluntarily have sex and sex makes babies and oops they were too careless in the moment and now the natural result is happening).
The Orwellian march of language is something else. Ending a human life is healthcare. Asking for normal pregnancy is forced birth/compelled birth/slavery.
I mean, I only whipped out the phrase in question because people here keep calling pro-choice people baby killers, so I thought some nice harmless hyperbole would be fun.
And you can really argue with it either. The woman in question wishes to abort the fetus; anti abortionists wish she would not. She is a baby killer, they want to force her to give birth. It is what it is.
That sounded wrong to me, so I searched it. All mentions of the phrase were negative towards it, i.e. using the phrase the same way you did.
There have been plenty of comments claiming that abortionists is actual murder, but none ever just outright say "Hey did you hear what the baby killers were up to this week?" and use that as the group designation. Doing so, or calling pro-lifers "forced birthers", is an instant claim that none of your opponents have principles and all are acting in bad faith. Surely they are not actually pro-life; they disagree with me, are therefore evil, and therefore want to compel innocent young women to give birth against their wills. Surely they're not actually pro-choice, they just want to murder babies.
Using those terms is a terrible norm. Nobody wants to keep arguing about whether pro-life people are actually pro-life or just hate women. Nobody wants to keep arguing about whether pro-choice people are actually pro-choice or just hate babies.
More options
Context Copy link
So long as you're happy to own the name, that's fine with me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This comment is kinda borderline, it's gotten two reports and I might overlook it if you weren't already on thin ice for boo-outgroup and weakman responses. I'm not going to perma-ban you, or even tempban you this time, because I think maybe this comment looks like progress in the right direction? But I am warning you.
In case you find this confusing, notice that the substance of your argument is fine (pro-life arguments as a social signal is a perfectly defensible position, presumably the same is true for pro-choice arguments, and most run-of-the-mill arguments, really) but your presentation is not. In particular, "no real concept of what a fetus is" and "do not believe in their hearts that an embryo is alive" are weak men. As the rules note:
I do think it's possible for sizable groups of people to be systematically mistaken about certain object-level facts, and to hold their positions on the basis of these mistaken claims. I also think it's possible for sizable groups of people to be systematically inaccurate about their own beliefs, both through wilful dishonesty and through unconscious error. I don't want to debate the validity of any particular example, but I do think that such things are at least possible, and therefore these are legitimate claims that people should be allowed to defend here.
Do the mods agree? If no, why not? If yes, what is the preferred mode of presentation for these sorts of claims? (If we need to work with a particular example, let's say that someone really does believe that pro-life advocates are systematically mistaken about certain biological facts about fetuses - what is the best way to present that claim in a way that doesn't violate the rules?)
I think there's an important distinction between "I think your beliefs are founded on faulty premises you haven't considered" and "you don't actually believe what you claim to believe." There are times when it is appropriate to call someone a liar to their face, but they demand a heck of a lot more work than DBDr put in. If you're going to accuse your opponents of being manipulative liars, you need to bring receipts.
I do think there is a more nuanced middle ground like you're hinting at, where large groups of people believe a comforting lie in order to protect their self images from their own selfishness or greed. And there is value in examining those situations, but you need to be really careful that you're not just building up strawmen to attack. Generally, I think extraordinary circumstances should be required before one breaks their charitable assumptions about others' beliefs.
More options
Context Copy link
Effortfully, charitably, and with evidence. The way to not violate the rules is, tautologically, to not violate the rules.
To your specific question, if you can find a pro-lifer on Twitter who obviously "has no real concept of what a fetus is," that's likely insufficient. If you can find and link three or five examples of recognized and respected pro-life organizations repeating a specific factually-wrong claim you want to specifically challenge, that's much more interesting. Even a poll of pro-lifers demonstrating widespread acceptance of some clearly false claim might suffice, though it would need to be framed carefully and with epistemic humility (if "most people are stupid" is just as good an explanation of the evidence as "these particular people are stupid," then you might just be engaged in a kind of roundabout isolated demand for rigor).
I've seen articles explaining how conservatives underestimate COVID risks, or how progressives overestimate police brutality or gender wage gaps. Those kinds of trends in group thinking are interesting and worth discussing--but not when they are just stated, without evidence or argument, as a dig on one's outgroup.
More options
Context Copy link
It looks to me like nara is explicitly saying that you can make those claims, you just have to A) provide evidence, and B) frame it in a way that is less antagonistic, dismissive, and strawmanny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link