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 -
Determining whether a couple is infertile in general is much harder than determining whether a couple is gay. It is entirely reasonable for the state to not want any marriages which do not produce children, but to allow the ones that it can't trivially detect.
The state can go fuck itself, frankly, if I ever get married or have kids it won't be to shore up the state. One wonders what's even the point of a state that places its own nebulously defined interest above that of its subjects.
Would that the pro-gay-marriage camp shared your disdain for state sanction. As it stands, forcing everyone else, including the state, to recognize gay "marriage" was an explicit goal. Partly, this was because state sanction included some obvious benefits, such as end-of-life care decisions, intestate succession, tax status, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right, I think the argument that sterile couplings in general are socially bad is weak - it's very hard to see how a widowed man and woman marrying in their 60s hurts society.
The core objection to gay marriage - whether admitted or not - is that homosexuality specifically is bad, and I think attempts to abstract away from this are disingenuous.
My own view of the issue is that homosexuality is a disability. I don't think less of anyone for being disabled, and I don't begrudge them finding their own way to best live with their disability. But it seems perverse to me to celebrate disability. People advancing pro-LGBTQ stuff feels similar to me to the deaf people who want their kids to be deaf too. And to the extent that sort of thinking takes over society as a whole, it's bad because it means we've lost the ability to see that having a properly functioning body and brain is a good thing. We're becoming disconnected from what should be obvious reality.
So I come down on the side that the best outcome is for society to tolerate homosexuality (whose practitioners are mostly unable to change their own desires) but not to celebrate it (whether through marriage recognition or rainbow flags or propagandistic representation in popular media or whatever). People should be allowed to be weird, but being gay should be seen as weird.
So you support the modern Russian and Hungarian policy towards homosexuality? Nobody has managed to thread the needle on ‘freedom for gays, but not celebrating and promoting it’ yet. The closest is probably the eastern euro countries where public homosexuality has legal restrictions(eg no pride parades, can’t be out to minors) but there are no sodomy laws.
The closest in my opinion is Japan, in which public homosexuality is tolerated to the extent that it conforms to longstanding dramatic/performance norms (eg okage). Private homosexuality is permitted but not encouraged and generally considered shameful. The vibe as I understand it is "be gay if you have to, but keep it to yourself".
More options
Context Copy link
That seems to be the position of most of the "conservative" sorts I know IRL. As one crudely but pithily summarized it: "I don't care if you're gay, just don't be a fag about it."
This is also the attitude of the conservative Texans I personally know. Homosexuality is tolerated, faggotry is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, they could always be made to adopt orphans, and at least some gay or lesbian couples go through the trouble of surrogacy.
The orphans aren't already in enough trouble?
I find most of the assisted reproduction creepy.
I'd rather have a 50% of being sexually abused as a child than counterfactually not exist, frankly. I think most people, if they were honest, would agree. This makes banning gays from having assisted-reproduction children ... extremely stupid, imo, and the morality that leads you to believe it must be prevented extremely suspect. (Its' still fine to think gays are evil or whatever, that can coexist)
He said "most of the assisted reproduction", it doesn't specify that it should be banned for gay people. Personally I think it should be banned for everyone.
Once in a while, when we talk, you end up saying something like "how do you not realize I'n far-right". This is how. I don't see how there's anything morally suspect about wanting to stop the fertility industry.
I said 'most' , to allow for assistance to the soldier who'd had his cock blown off but still wants kids with his wife. It should be rare enough to avoid the industrialization of reproduction. Only if he's still alive. 'Harvesting' sperm from the dead is creepy, but I understand the motivation.
Homosexuals should be banned from assisted reproduction, if they want children they should make them themselves like the rest of us. Although I'd prefer they didn't especially those invested in the ideology of alphabetism. I don't think they should adopt either. Orphanages would be better.
More options
Context Copy link
Well you know what they say, the future belongs to those who show up. But you do you.
Do you have a galaxy-brained take on curious straight's true allegiance? He may be a progressive heretic in far right clothing, but I'm sure his progressive friends would think he's far right, and that's good enough for me.
Sure, but even if you're right, there are certain points past which I don't recognize the result as "having shown up". For example I sympathize with DaseIndustries Transhumanists more than I do with Bay Area Rat Transhumanists, but both are so distant from me that I can't see myself having a direct stake in either one of them winning.
But none off that matters, as the question was about morality, and this is not a moral argument.
Yeah my personal theory about how he showed up here was that some California Bluehair called him a racist, and he said "Very well... I see that I do not belong here... I shall go live... with the racsists!"
You can have him, but I don't want his views associated with me. They're like someone deliberately set out to miss the point.
That is the weirdness of such arguments. What will showing up prove? That you were morally right, that you have retroactively won in a hypothetical future none of us will know? It strikes me as the inverse of : 'in the past, we all lived in a communist pacifist matriarchical cooperative', but even less subject to contrary evidence. Ownership of the past and future need not concern us. The future is a foreign country.
Neither does the Bluehair. Are you going to deny him his identity and his far right card, unless he goes trad? If you object to his characterization of himself on definitional grounds, that's one thing, but if you're just gatekeeping and trying to up the social pressure as a political act, I must object under freedom of association.
As far as I'm concerned, he can always tag along on the road to Bremen, where we shall sing for our bread.
Doesn't that imply that the Nazis were only wrong because they lost? If we're full-nihilist fair enough, but then it's obvious we're using completely different and irreconcilable moral frameworks, and arguing over any specific case isn't going to be productive.
Well, then let's just get him to identify as a moderate classical liberal (without changing anything about his actual views), or whatever it is you consider yourself to be, and then like I said you can have him, and everyone will be happy.
Huh? Freedom of association means I get to gatekeep him out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I literally said "it's still fine to think gays are evil" in the next sentence, man, I'm not being subtle here. The point is even then, the right response isn't "prevent harm".
Right, and I think whatever the harm is, it's better to have more people who can experience things (and more rolls of the dice for higher-quality people, etc)
Well, but that's my point. You're acting like a progressive's parody of a conservative.
Not everyone goes by a utilitarian "minimize harm" morality. Turning reproduction into an industry is an evil in itself, one of the greatest ones that are out there, in my opinion.
EDIT: Sorry I must have missed this one:
I mean, you are still using a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. You're saying it's worth to roll the dice on the harm, because the expected benefits are greater. My point is that industrializing a fundamental human experience like birth is already wrong in itself, and arguing in favor of it with "we might get a few more von Neumans" doesn't work on a fundamental level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No to both, not that I can particularly comment on what you consider creepy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link