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 -
It's vanishingly rare here, I think experiencing the alternative gives you just as much standing to judge it. I'm not sure if I quite understand what you have in mind when you say "the experience of circumcision-objectors observably does not generalize very well". Here, practically any adult man would consider it an unambiguous mutilation if proposed without absolute necessity.
The exact extent of the loss of function is of little interest to me, it's a technicality dwarfed by the default of no wanton destruction of body parts that I know to be perfectly good as they are. I could probably live with the tip of each finger, say 0.5cm, removed. You could prove it's only 8% loss in general performance, I don't care - it has to be a significant, unambiguous improvement before it deserves even a conversation.
I especially dislike how meaningless the practice is in the US, and as such, a reminder that men are disposable. If it were a genuine ritual you go through when coming of age or whatever, I'd be far less disgusted, even though it would hardly be any more of a choice.
I'm not demanding each 'victim' to be mad about it, of course, perspective @self_made_human describes is reasonable.
If you haven't experienced the loss, I think it's easy to overestimate the degree of loss involved. If you have experienced it, and if the argument is that the loss is significant in specific ways, knowing that the loss does not seem significant to you in those specific ways seems like strong evidence in a way that "I enjoy this and do not want to lose it" is not. You can imagine what that loss would be like, but I have actually had the experience.
I think his perspective is similar to mine. I will not be circumcising my male children. But people who choose otherwise are not "mutilators", any more than people who send their children to a public school have "sold their children into child slavery". The label is too non-central to be useful, and it seems to me that it's primarily useful to try to spin up a victimhood narrative that just doesn't seem appropriate to me. Male disposability is a real thing, but the object-level facts can't support the weight "mutilation" is trying to load here.
Only men cut well out of childhood do. But I would not cede the exclusive right to judge the matter to them anyhow. I only meant I consider being and not being all natural as far back as you can remember equal standing here.
I don't agree. Yes, it's a strong word, it is sufficiently central here. I would say such parents are perpetuating mutilation, just not the worst imaginable exact kind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link