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 -
Revealed preference says that a person's self interest is whatever thing is maximized by his choices. Same as "the purpose of a system is what it does.
The San Francisco liberal who walks through feces and endures harassment from junkies every day wants it. He’d rather let it persist than send them to rehab or, god forbid, involve a police officer. This is his self interest.
The rich communist sent to the gulag doesn't regret supporting communism. He wants communism to win more than he wants a hot meal and a roof over his head.
I'm generally a believer in revealed preference but I think this takes things too far.
Does the moth prefer to be burned by the flame?
The rich communist sent to the gulag deludes himself into thinking that his imprisonment is all a mistake, not an inevitable consequence of his flawed belief system. The trans activist doesn't think that giving kids hormones and cutting off their breasts is abuse – she's just trying to help!
Of course, sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice. Most people are just really, really bad at thinking through what happens if they get what they want.
Yes, but critically, their attempt to help isn't a result of believing a mastectomy will improve outcomes on some widely-agreed-upon-as-beneficial scale, they're helping because they see bodily autonomy and morphological freedom as good in themselves, and preferences to reconcile people with their "natural" bodies as bigoted. This isn't about "sufficiently advanced stupidity", It's conflict theory through and through.
I accept this criticism and I admit some dissatisfaction with my original post.
But let's consider that both the modal republican and the trans activist might share a similar terminal goal: "all people should feel comfortable with their gender identity". The difference is that the Republican thinks gender confusion applies to 0.1% of the population but the trans activist thinks it applies to 10-20%.
Yes, this hypothetical trans activist's position is insane, but I don't see any indication why it would not be sincerely held.
I can't speak for every Republican (I'm not even American, so my exposure to them is extremely limited), but my perspective is that even after conceding that it is better for a given person to not feel discomfort with their gender identity, I still think it's better to convince them to accept their discomfort, rather than for them to modify their body.
I'm telling you, it's a difference of values. I have a feeling the mistake theorists have a hard time accepting that such a thing is even possible.
Yeah I broadly agree with this.
If a magical pill existed that instantly flipped somebody's gender in a full, non-reversible way I'd be not against an adult who's deeply convinced of their gender identity being incorrect for the body they're born with. Or if in our society all people wearing a blue hat were treated 100% as a woman, and red hat 100% as a man, and somebody wishing to change their hat. But right now it's a ton of surgery, expense and treatment to create something that's a distant facsimile of a man or a woman that doesn't seem to lead to meaningful improvement of the underlying psychological issues whilst creating a bunch of externalities
Once we're in the territory of 'magic pills' why not have the pill allow them to be happy with their natal bodies?
Would your magic pill for anorexia help them loose weight or keep them alive without eating?
A pill that lets one cope with the lack of (bodily, in this case) freedom rather than provide more freedom is inherently more suspect and abusable. Or in other words, it serves the interests of those who reject transhumanist ideals and want everyone to remain in the image that they were born in, and this is why trans people, when queried, generally reject that idea in favor of the free sex change pill.
Similarly I would rather be more attractive than be able to tolerate the fruits of being less attractive; would rather be able to achieve my goals with less work than be able to work more, etc. "Be happy with natal bodies" pill is the proposal of the conformist solution rather than the personal freedom one. It is, although I admit it's a stretch, akin to "curing" the black men's desire for freedom rather than making them more suited for independent life.
The rebuttal is just insisting that transness is not really about being in the wrong body, but a deeper issue that wouldn't be resolved by giving the trans person what they think they want. The more analogous to "treating" schizophrenia by staging "arrests" of their "gang stalkers," or performing "surgeries" to remove the "tracking devices" they're convinced have been installed in them, and expecting this to work out.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link