sodiummuffin
No bio...
User ID: 420
sodiummuffin
6d ago
Democracy is a sham. It doesn't matter who gets elected, the bureaucrats remain the same, the teachers remain the same, the university professors accrediting the teachers remain the same, and the people making movies remain the same. So, of course, nothing changes; it's the same government!
This seems like you redefining influential members of the culture as the real government in order to argue that the government controls the culture. Of course you aren't going to think the government is weak if you redefine anyone with power as part of the unofficial government. But someone who agrees with you but is using normal definitions is going to say that the the control of the U.S. government over culture is weak, and when they coincide it's generally because an influential cultural faction controls the government rather than the other way around.
Definition issues aside, I think you're also very mistaken about it being top-down. I saw the rise of SJW ideology, and it didn't originate from film-makers or bureaucrats or teachers. It was developed, refined, and spread by posters on websites like Tumblr and Something Awful. The influence over institutions like media outlets came later. Some of the words and ideas originated from academia decades earlier, but plenty was altered or brand new. "Demisexual" originated from a young teen girl on a play-by-post roleplaying forum (used to explain why her slutty RPG character had sex with some characters but not others) and spread when another poster from the same forum made a Tumblr post about it as a joke. Now plenty of big official institutions and university professors and so on take it seriously. (The original girl now identifies as demisexual herself, having "discovered" that she was projecting it onto her character, while the Tumblr poster regrets having accidentally unleashed it on the world.)
The rapid rise of SJW ideology had less to do with the power of the people creating or spreading it and more to do with a sort of selective memetic immunodeficiency among institutions and much of the public, with the internet serving as a breeding ground for ideas that maximally exploited those openings. To the extent that specific people were influential at all it was by being the sorts of weirdos who posted on the internet a lot and/or became skilled at internet posting. Not every change in culture is going to follow that pattern, but in the internet era I think such changes tend to be grassroots.
Look at any communist revolution
The government can influence culture a lot more if it's killing anyone who publicly disagrees and engaging in very extensive and relatively successful censorship. That doesn't mean every country (or the world as a whole) works the same way, or that establishing a totalitarian government is easier than influencing culture in other ways. There are multiple communist groups in the west who think engaging in normal politics is a waste of time because communism can only be achieved through violent revolution. Needless to say they're a lot less influential than the Something Awful posters who spent a decade refining their shitposting skills to amuse a few hundred other forum posters, then discovered those skills were transferable to influencing millions of people on social media. Which isn't to say that direct mass-appeal on social media is the only way, Scott Alexander demonstrates another approach.
This is fundamentally just a really bad way to judge whether a treatment works, one that we rightly dismiss for other treatments. There are also countless anecdotal reports of people who recover from cancer after faith-healing. And unlike spontaneous remission of cancer, which is rare, regression to the mean in mental health is the norm. "My mental health got so bad that I sought out X treatment, after which I got better" is the default result.
Go read Scott's Alcoholic Anonymous post (another treatment that a lot of supposed beneficiaries swear by that some critics accuse of being cult-like). Notice both how the evidence base is a complete mess (because it's really hard to test these things) and how the ultimate conclusion seems to be that AA (and pretty much all other treatments tested) is similarly effective to your doctor spending a few minutes telling you that alcoholism is bad and you should stop. Well, the evidence regarding gender transition is even worse. If it turns out outcomes for gender transition are equal or worse than your doctor spending a few minutes telling you "puberty can be scary but you'll be fine" or "accept yourself", that's something we really want to know rather than continuing with a standard treatment with so many downsides. Really it's something we should have known before establishing it as a standard treatment, but instead it went from "so rare you can't do decent studies" to "so common and standard that it would be unethical and difficult to have a real control group" without the step where we actually find out if it works.
A lot of arguments regarding gender transition research seem similar to other arguments that you pick up reading about medical research from people like Scott or Derek Lowe, just with the additional politicized element.
A lot of treatments are based on popular theories on how things work that make the effectiveness of the treatment seem like an inevitability, then crash and burn in randomized control trials. Suggesting a biochemical pathway is bullshit is less likely to get you fired than suggesting "inborn gender identity" is bullshit, which makes it even worse.
"The trial doesn't look good but maybe it works in a subgroup" is the sort of dubious cope you see all the time. At least the p-hackers saying "efficacy was shown in middle-aged hispanic women" have some sort of evidence, saying "okay but assuming the treatment works we just need to do a better job of diagnosing the people it'll work on" is even worse. The only saving grace is that the negative studies on gender transition aren't high-quality randomized control trials because none of the studies on the subject are.
Most fundamentally, everyone knows that the vast majority of prospective treatments fail and the burden of proof is with the people who think they'll succeed. You can have a clear mechanism, anecdotes, observational trials pointing the right direction...and people know not to get too excited. Yes there are standard treatments that are grandfathered in without going through the FDA or equivalent, but the reason why that works isn't really "standard of care", it's "so incredibly obviously effective that the result was clear with much lower standards of evidence". The argument would be that gender transition is such a case, but the various negative studies (and "positive" studies that are pretty negative on closer examination) seem to show it's not really that obvious.
Because it calls into doubt both the advisability of the current standard of care and the theoretical framework the treatment is based on. If "diagnose people with gender dysphoria if they say they're trans" is an effective diagnosis method, why is it getting so many apparent false-positives? If "gender identity" is an inborn trait that people have an internal sense of, how are all these people getting it wrong? Why don't they just feel "gender dysphoria" the first time someone calls them "he" and immediately stop? For those who think they're not false-positives, why does it seem to so obviously spread socially? If the answer is something like "because the born-trans members felt more comfortable coming out", how does it get such absurdly high rates among not-very-selected subgroups? If 40% of a classroom in a private girl's high-school comes out as trans, does that mean we should believe 40% of all women throughout the world and all of history are closeted transgender people? I don't think you have be certain about whether you think "inborn transgenderism isn't real" or "inborn transgenderism is real but 99% of post-surge ones are false-positives" or "more than 1% are real but there's a large fraction of false-positives" to point out the ways the dominant theoretical framework and treatment methodology doesn't really make sense. Nor is there going to be a lot of a agreement on those among critics. Also "Are there a group of people with an inborn 'wrong gender identity' disorder that is best treated through gender transition?", "Are those people 'really' the other gender?", and "Would it be best if society did X to encourage or enforce classifying them as the other gender?" are three different questions.
More options
Context Copy link