site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35479 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't know what oppressive norm you are talking about, but the fact that people can lie or be wrong about their own nature is exactly my point. For example: People charged with crimes commonly claim to be mentally ill, in an attempt to mitigate punishment. If we want to know the relationship between mental illness and crime, we don't want to take those people at their word; rather we want to look at people who are actually mentally ill, or at the very least who claimed to be mentally ill before they committed the crime. Yet, re transwomen, the OP is advocating doing the exact opposite.

If your policy on sentencing the mentally ill is "they count as mentally ill when they say so", then that has to be the standard we use when analyzing what's wrong with the policy. That is not currently the policy for the mentally ill; it is currently the policy for trans people.

If we want to know the relationship between mental illness and crime, we don't want to take those people at their word; rather we want to look at people who are actually mentally ill,

And there it is, this is oppression. Because you're imposing your view of reality on them, using the cover of the idea that there is such a thing as "actually mentally ill", a doubly made up concept which is nothing but power.

At least that's quite literally what Foucault would say.

The current progressive philosophical paradigm is not equipped to deal with this problem, because subjective feeling is explicitly more important than objective reality in its hierarchy of concern. And if it was not so, transpeople wouldn't get the privileges they are afforded today.

Asking for coherence or some sort of standard to deal with the ground level problems generated by this view is never going to work or make sense within the paradigm because those problems are all assumed to be stemming from oppression in the first place (blame Rousseau for this one). And you are hence condemned to be a conservative, one who seeks to slow the bulldozer but ultimately is powerless to stop it or change its course.

Yes, I am sure some people would say that it is oppression, but who cares? You know, the American Political Science Assn just had its [annual conference]9https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/apsa/apsa22/), and although a search of the conference schedule for "oppression" turns up 71 hits, a search for "modeling" turns up 447. And while the division on Critical Political Science had 9 sessions, the division on Conflict Processes had 56. There are, by the way, 56 divisions. I have been to that conference, and the people talking about real issues go the entire 4 days not caring what those other people are talking about in their little bubbles. So, yes, it is perfectly possible to determine whether people who identify as trans before going to jail and conveniently discovering their identity actually commit more sex offenses than average, or if they don't, regardless of whether some people deem that a form of oppression.

Much as it is in litterature, the people studying politics are some of the least likely persons to actually engage in it in any meaningful level.

You're coming at this issue from some sort of liberal issue based framework. But that's utterly ill equipped to deal with the issues of today. You're not living in a world where everyone shares that framework anymore, and in fact you live in a world where it's so thoroughly hacked that you can be used to produce anything up to the inversion of your ideals if manipulated correctly. Experts say. Sources confirm. New study shows.

I've seen it happen too many times now. If the stats are favorable they will be promoted, every redditor will quote them to you at the first chance. If the stats are not favorable, you'll be banned for even mentioning their existence.

All this quality scholarship about what we ought to do were we good little managers? It's all mere justification.

All this is really about is power. Which neither of us have.

It doesn't matter how many people get hurt by policy. It doesn't matter how well you can spin it either way in very respectable papers. This is just the process to legislate what has already been decided by those who can make the exception.

So a persons word isn't the only factor in determining their true gender identity, an external investigator is needed to probe it?

Doesn't this invalidate the self-ID doctrine?

Self-ID is not a 'doctrine' but a policy. I very much doubt you can find any politician etc. of any prominence who argues that it is impossible to lie about gender ID. Obviously it is, the argument is that in some/most cases self-ID is the best choice even if there is a potential for lying, just as advocating for a more stringent system does not mean one believes that no genuine trans people will be erroneously denied a legal change.

It seems like we have enough evidence now though to finally state that, in fact, Self-ID is not the best choice, it's harmful and unjust. The only way at this point for activists to try to argue for Self-ID is to cite marginal benefits while excusing massive harms. And if that's the standard, than anyone can play that game, nothing's off limits.

What does that have to do with what I said. Again, I don’t care about the trans issue. I am talking about the data issue: Either mentally ill people are unusually crime-prone, or they are not, and we can know that only if we look at people who are actually mentally ill when they committed the crime, rather than people who claim mental illness after the fact. The same applies to transwomen. So, as I said initially, if you care only about the culture war stuff, then "they made their bed" makes perfect sense. If, OTOH, you care about crime policy, it doesn’t.

If, OTOH, you care about crime policy, it doesn’t.

Crime policy is "you look at people who claim to be trans and count them".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats