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 think the really interesting thing about abortion is how sui generis it is.
The vaccine example doesn’t really work. First, the vaccine may save a third party. Second, any life snuffed out by a party that isn’t vaccinated was snuffed out because the dying person choose to create the potential interaction. That is, A and B both have to choose to be in the same vicinity. A could solve the impasse by taking a vaccine (assuming the vaccine worked perfectly). B could solve the impasse by taking the vaccine or not being there.
It is thus hard to say B has a right to force A to take a vaccine. With abortion, the B (ie the fetus) can make no choice to prevent the conflict of rights.
Third, there is a difference morally between spreading unwittingly a virus and actively choosing to kill someone.
I think perhaps a better thought excitement is that you are doing a fun activity that you know will have a reasonably chance of causing a third party (who has zero control) to die unless you under take a 9 month uncomfortable period of physical stress and a slight up tick in risk that you’ll die. Phrased that way, I think even most Democrats would say yeah you are morally obligated to take the physical stress and slight uptick in death. How they get out of the implication is by saying the third party isn’t really a human (which is probably true at conception; less so the longer in the pregnancy).
Yes, the example wasn't very real and a bit half-baked but as a thought experiment youre obliged to take it as it is. The point is there's a compulsion element from the state on the individual in banning abortion. This kind of thing normally raises the hackles of an average republican but doesn't seem to register in this case. Murder is also a misframing because the cost of not committing murder is zero.
Compulsion is one way of seeing it. Another way is merely preventing someone from killing someone.
It all rests on personhood I suppose and the current social contract is pretty clear on what a person is as far as I can tell.
It seems most people draw the line around 15 weeks
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link