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 -
If you care about sound policy you need to use the same definitions on both sides of the equation to determine ratios.
If anyone in the not convicted of a crime side is allowed self-ID and only accused (or convicted?) can have that status revoked externally your numbers won’t work.
In the situation where trans women convicted of crimes can have that status revoked, you are automatically biasing your numbers away from criminality in that population.
If your true ratio is A:B and you change that to A-0:B-X the ratio automatically gets larger. Assuming of course X>0, but if it isn’t, it’s kind of a silly argument anyways.
That’s the math part. The politics part is there has been an argument from the beginning that if self-ID is the only requirement then there will be bad actors. We should not use it for this very reason.
Originally the the response was that no one would lie about this so we shouldn’t be concerned.
Now it feels like the response is of course those bad actors couldn’t really mean it, so we shouldn’t count bad people on our side, they’re on yours.
I have tried to make clear that whose "side" the bad people are on is not the issue I am concerned about. It is who actually commits crimes. In order to determine that, we have to look at their identity at the time they committed the crime.
If every gang member who is put in prison foreswears their gang in order to get benefits (as supposedly some inmates claimto be trans), would you infer that,because no one in prison is a gang member, gang members do not commit a disproportionate number of crimes, and hence the authorities shouldn't worry about those gang members downthe street? Of course not. Yet you seemto be advocating for the use of the same absurd methodology re trans criminals.
Nope, I’m saying that you have to remove liars from both sides.
It’s not absurd if your goal is accuracy.
Actual:Actual is reasonable.
Actual + Fakers:Actual + Fakers is reasonable.
Actual + Fakers:Actual
Is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link