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’m not sure how many of those questions were being asked at the time. My instinct is that there were enough people in the conversation for it to include those topics, if only as a status differentiator.
What I’m trying to say is that the gay marriage debate is more similar to that one. The correct response to a white supremacist trying to lifeguard the gene pool was “no, everyone gets equal protection under the law.” Likewise, the response to a fundamentalist trying to defend marriage was “nope, still equal protection.” This was true whether the opposition was making a practical or philosophical argument.
The trans debate hinges more on definitions than either of those cases.
That could have possibly been a response. Again, impossible to find my old comments from legal blogs back at that time, but I have a clear memory of writing a comment where I considered various possible grounds on which the Court could have ruled in favor of Obergefell. I concluded that the one that would have made the least hash out of the law would have been to just drop EPC and be done with it (this would have required a little bit of effort, because of the societal context, but could have been done relatively simply). But that's not what we got. We got a hash. And it's not surprising that we got a hash, because that's where the state of the discourse was at the time. It wasn't just a simple, clear-cut question without any deep philosophical import. It was absolutely considered to be deeply intertwined with these issues of sex, the nature of sexual behavior/orientation, identity, nature/nurture, and the purpose of marriage. I think the easiest and best evidence of this, if you simply disbelieve my recollection, is to read both the majority and dissenting opinions in Obergefell. In contrast, Loving was simple, to the point, and unanimous. The sole concurrence makes the reasoning even more simple and concrete - racial classifications are just bad, mkay.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link