site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32851 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm thinking about the trans rights debate.

How is asking women to give up their spaces for trans women different to how we asked white people to give up their segregated spaces to people of color back in the day?

  • -17

Because an extremely small minority of mentally ill people is not the same thing as black people under Jim Crow, and trans women are demanding access to the women's changing room is not black men under Jim Crow wanting to eat in the same restaurants as white men.

Being trans is not necessarily a mental illness, though gender dysphoria is listed as such. There are plenty of well-adjusted trans people living happy lives, at which point it's a difference, not a disease. It's worth mentioning homosexuality also used to be listed as a mental illness, but that was only because of social prejudice, and is no longer considered such.

There are plenty of people with other mental illnesses that are happy and well adjusted. Alcoholics come to mind. Pedophiles and bestiality-practitioners would be in this category if their conduct was not stigmatized and illegal. That doesn't mean they aren't mental illnesses in general which we need to treat with a deterrence treatment, rather than an encouragement treatment.

That doesn't mean they aren't mental illnesses in general which we need to treat with a deterrence treatment

Sure, but why, in the case of trans? Alcoholism sucks, liver disease, it makes you dumb and act stupidly, etc. "There are plenty of well-adjusted trans people living happy lives" is intended to be an argument that most trans people could be 'well adjusted andhappy' (what does that mean, exactly) and there's no point in 'deterrence'.

Liver disease from alcoholism isn't all that much different in life reduction from hormone therapy + full transition surgeries. The resulting creations are a constant infection risk somewhat akin to an open wound, for the rest of the person's life. Plus, there is little evidence of affirmation actually reducing suicide rate, whereas the suicide rate does plummet for kids who give up on the notion before hormones and surgery.

So there is a massive gain to the individual if they are deterred. There is also a massive gain to society because the deterred is a healthy adult who can procreate.

A lot of trans people, maybe even a majority idk, just don't get SRS at all. That doesn't create an open wound!

It's "somewhat akin to an open wound". Well, how akin? What percent of people with SRS, ten years later - (there were a lot of people who got SRS years ago) - have severe complications today? I'd predict less than 20%.

And the person I know who had SRS doesn't seem to have any long-term medical problems from it.

Do you not think there is a fairly big gap between the quality of life of a transitioned trans person and a birth member of their desired gender(not just because of social factors)?

There aren't any good reasons for 'trans people' to transition in any case.

But I was asking OP to make a good argument for that, rather than just invoke 'mental illness', and non-illuminating claims about suicide or surgery.

Do you not think there is a fairly big gap between the quality of life of a transitioned trans person and a birth member of their desired gender

Not really? If you don't get SRS, which a lot of trans people don't, hormones just make you look ugly and it and voice training and such are a minor cost. I know many trans people who just seem normal and being trans is something they seem to 'benefit' from much more than it 'costs' them, if benefit and cost mean 'happiness' and 'quality of life'. But 'happiness' is just a person's judgement of what they're doing, is it really the same when soyface.jpg is happy about the new marvel movie as when wiles proved fermat's last theorem? Or even just when you have kids? (Arguably: yes, and all that proves is that happiness, itself, isn't worth anything, it's the actual thing that took place or was willed that matters, and that's the confusion). So - given that trans people just pursue images of useful things like signs of being able to have children, but don't do so in a useful or coherent way, being trans is bad. But ... it's honestly pretty similar to modern fashion, makeup, casual sex, and 'consumerism' in that sense. Which, leading nowhere and having no purpose - is just as bad.

"it makes you want to kill yourself at higher rates than Jews during the Holocaust" seems like a good reason to me.

I'm friends with a number of trans people and they basically never bring up suicide or how awful their lives are. They don't read, at all, as a jew during the holocaust. So this isn't plausible. If your goal is to 'ensure universal happiness, and allow all oppressed people to free themselves' - that isn't going to work for right wing ends, like saying 'trans people aren't happy and are oppressed by the schools and medicine'.

The statistics don't agree with your anecdote. Likely because of quite literal survivor bias.

Not enough trans people kill themselves for survivorship bias to matter? It'd need to be at least 20%, and the highest claim I ever saw was 5%.

A hundred times this. If you live in a city I bet you walk past at least one person with schizophrenia every day - not a homeless person (although plenty of the homeless are schizophrenic), a well dressed person going to work or shopping or whatever. You would have no idea, because they are managing their illness and are happy and well adjusted. But they are still schizophrenic, they are still mentally ill.

Everybody talks a good game about inclusion and destigmatising mental illness, but I have yet to see anything that doesn't convince me it is purely because of that stigma that trans people deny being mentally ill despite having an ailment that affects their minds.

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