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 -
South Korea's fertility rate has been declining since at least the 1960s, but abortion only became legal there in 2020. Before then, people just got illegal abortions. The same would happen in the US if the pro-life package was enforced only by law, while people still wanted to have abortions.
US pro-lifers have developed no effective mechanism of changing whether women en masse get abortions or not. Trying to use law would fail just like in South Korea. Religion is no longer a serious influence on culture in the US outside of some politically marginal parts of the country - and for that matter, South Korean religiousness has not done much for their fertility rate. Long-term arguments about needing to support the future of society have little appeal outside some niche online forums like this.
Hanania is or at least pretends to be an extreme pro-free-market, pro-freedom-of-association kind of guy. So I am guessing that his answer to how to address the problems of immigration without arguing about HBD all the time might be something like "let whoever wants to come to the US come, but citizens and companies should be free not to do business with them and the government should not give them welfare". Which I'm not sure would work in practice, but it at least is a somewhat more defensible idea than "open the borders while changing nothing else about US law as it currently exists".
I'm not sure I agree with Hanania about the idea that appealing to pro-liberty arguments is more likely to get rid of anti-discrimination laws than appealing to "HBD" is. Most Americans just don't seem to be that libertarian. On the other hand, I somewhat agree with Hanania insofar I think that HBD's prospects as a force in US politics are very questionable and even if HBD became widely accepted, it would not necessarily do much to discredit dogmatic calls for equality. After all, what we now refer to using the euphemism "HBD" was by far the most popular attitude that white Americans had towards race differences just 80 years ago, but within the span of just a few decades that attitude completely shifted. So even if HBD "won" again, how would it retain its "winning" position against new futuristic versions of the call for equality?
More options
Context Copy link