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 wonder if this turns out to be good electoral politics or not. Abortion compromises always strike me as a trust question. What line you draw is just the first step in the game, the far more important question is do I trust you not to take more?
Medical exceptions are often non-starters for Pro-Life activists because they don't trust doctors to draw the line narrowly as to what is an acceptable exception. They are fine, conceptually, with an abortion to actually save the life of the mother, but they worry that medical exceptions will be expanded to the point where it becomes a rubber stamp allowing an abortion wherever requested, regardless of any actual risk to the life of any actual mother. Equally rape, what's to stop any woman from claiming she was raped to abort a child she doesn't want? Because, in all honesty, requiring a conviction before an abortion is so stupid that I don't think anyone can get behind it.
Pro-Abortion types won't trust Republican admin teams to not try and restrict abortion further once they get their foot in the door.
Trump has the advantage that his base trusts him to an absurd extent, probably more than anyone has trusted any American politicians since, what JFK? So even if Pro-Lifers oppose this compromise, they're more likely to turn out and vote for him anyway figuring he won't do it. But will this stop the bleeding among people who are pro-Abortion? Do they trust Trump to pursue a limited compromise?
You don’t need to require conviction, just an accusation to the police. Most supposed rape victims aren’t even willing to do that, which makes their claims slightly suspicious.
"I was raped by a stranger entering my home last night. He wore a ski mask, put a bag over my head immediately, was approximately average height and build."
Does she get the abortion?
Sure, and the police should be able to use the DNA to track down the supposed rapist. If it turns out she lied, then she can face the legal consequences for filing a false police report. Looks like up to a year in prison in my state, plus whatever additional penalty she may face for getting an illegal abortion.
Ok, so I'm dating my girlfriend, she gets raped, gets pregnant. Do I have to hazard the odds that I'm raising the rapist baby at risk of sending my girlfriend to prison?
In a certain sense, yes, but only insofar as our legal system isn’t perfect. You also have to hazard the odds that your girlfriend will die from complications arising out of the abortion.
Edit: Of course, even should she choose not to abort the baby, there’s nothing forcing her (or you) to raise it. Adoptions are a thing.
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
Re-phrased slightly: Will people who are pro-abortion trust the guy who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe? I'm thinking the answer is no.
Trump doesn't have to persuade blue abortion voters who were never going to vote for him, he just has to avoid alienating voters who might vote for him but like abortion. This is probably actually a lesson the GOP could learn from Trump.
Sure, big is the target population here? My impression is this only works for people who think (1) Roe was too permissive on abortion and (2) many Republican proposals are too strict. Not sure how many people that describes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'll toss in another one - I don't trust pro-choice hospital attorneys to not just lie about what they think the medical exemption constitutes in order to make their opponents look bad for political reasons. If this sounds unbelievably evil, I am willing to bite that bullet when it comes to my opinion of hospital attorneys.
But yeah, I concur, the chances of getting anyone even slightly to the left of center to trust Trump is very low, and they're not even wrong to think he's a flimflam man that'll say whatever he thinks is popular.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link