site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   3423 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 9, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why is LGBTQ so important for liberals in terms of foreign policy?

For example, when debating Russia, arguments often amount to Russia is evil because they aren't onboard with pride. Russia isn't putting LGBTQAASASFDSFDSFDSFDSFSD people in concentration camps, they simply seem not to have pride flags while having a don't ask don't tell attitude. Why does that infuriate liberals that much?

Countries in the middle east can engage in all sorts of questionable behaviour but, often it is a lack of LGBTQ flags that infuriates the left. Again, they aren't mass-executing LGBTQ people or having concentrations camps, they simply don't celebrate it or want it rubbed in people's faces.

It seems like existence of pride parades seems to be a key benchmark for judging the moral virtue of a country. Why is this benchmark so central?

So, can you elaborate what "want it rubbed in people's faces" means? Because that's probably where you're going to find the answer to your question, since "not rubbing it in people's faces" includes

  • making it illegal for individuals to "promote homosexuality"
  • making same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples ineligible for the legal protections available to opposite-sex couples
  • not allowing transgender adults to change their legal gender and
  • banning all gender-affirming care
  • making it illegal for people suffering from gender dysphoria to adopt children
  • changing the status of marriages by a trans individual with a person who shares the same birth sex as them to nullified
  • defining violent criminal acts carried out against LGBT people as criminal offences under Russian law such that fact that crimes which are motivated by the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is not considered an aggravating factor when the court determines the sentence
  • providing no anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people and having no designation for hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity
  • deeming the distribution of "materials promoting LGBTQ relationships" to minors, which was then updated in 2022 to extend to apply to anyone regardless of age, thus making any expression deemed a promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships illegal
  • ruling the international LGBTQ movement to be "extremist", outlawing it in the country, the the proceeding day sending security forces to raid bars, male saunas and nightclubs across Moscow
  • ruling homosexual acts between consenting males were against the law until 1993
  • never approving a request to hold a gay pride rally

Hopefully you can see why that would infuriate anyone, much less liberals, and how it appears a little more than "simply don't celebrate it".

The problem with this is exactly what you've done here- complain about things liberals-as-in-freedom would normally have problems with yet have the intention of smuggling a bunch of progressive idpol stuff in.

In this case, you've conflated standard free speech issues with "and that's why they need special protection" (which in practice is only ever applied in a way that favors Western progressives- we can argue over is-ought, but the best way to avoid abuse of a carve-out is to not have one in the first place) and "actually yes, the government should pretend men are women" (antisocial behaviors have a bimodal distribution).

So denying the frame to the progressives by 'ruling the international LGBTQ movement to be "extremist"' is, trivially, the correct answer- the solution if your nation is looking to make relations between straights and everyone else better is always something homegrown.

I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to say because I don’t know what “liberals as in freedom” or “standard free speech issues”. Can you repeat yourself with different vocabulary?

"Free speech liberals" believe that no viewpoint should be banned. Like all pure ideologies, nobody has it, and in real life there are edge cases, but that's the idea.

Freedom liberals would agree: It is ridiculous that gays cannot advocate for themselves. Some of your bullet points are standard modern liberal rights like that.

Some of your bullet points are special treatment, justified or not. I know the argument for affirmative action: [group] has been treated badly and denied opportunities, so [group members] should be preferentially considered for jobs, housing, schooling, etc. This is also the argument for the "hate crime" construct.

Unfortunately, at no point can you objectively say "[group] is equal now, no more affirmative action." In fact, it is in the best interest of [group] that they enjoy success, but are perceived to be oppressed.

And even putting all that aside: if I am punished more harshly for harming John than for harming Jack, if John is more likely to be considered for economic activities, if John is seen as inherently good because of an intrinsic property he didn't choose, such as race, sexuality, parentage...

John is a noble, and Jack is not.

Hopefully you can see why that would infuriate anyone, much less liberals

I wholeheartedly support every single bullet point you have here, and so do a whole lot of people in the US.

I wholeheartedly don't support every single bullet point I have here, and so do a whole lot of other people in the US, too. I suppose we cancel eachother out.

The question is whether those things would 'infuriate anyone' and the answer is clearly not.

That is one answer. I think another answer can be that people think they aren't infuriated by those things but, in fact, are.

Would you say your argument is that there's a consensus on these points, even if a few people disagree?

I think another answer can be that people think they aren't infuriated by those things but, in fact, are.

What's the logic here? Are you arguing that people like @TitaniumButterfly are lying when they claim to not be infuriated? Is it some form of false consciousness that would be dispelled were these bullet points implemented locally?

I don’t understand what you mean by “consensus on these points”.

I don’t think TitaniumButterfly is lying; I think they do believe they’re not outraged. But I believe a dive into the logic behind why they believe so will reveal they, in fact, are.

I don’t understand what you mean by “consensus on these points”.

You listed a bunch of bullet points for specific policies. Your argument seems to be that most people, or possibly everyone, will converge on opposition to these policies were they actually implemented. When TB above argues that actually he supports your list of policies, your answer is that their belief that they support such policies is mistaken, and in fact they would oppose such policies, correct? And this is a general claim that least a supermajority of people actually do not really want these policies implemented, even if they currently mistakenly believe they do, correct?

But I believe a dive into the logic behind why they believe so will reveal they, in fact, are.

Would you care to do such a dive, at least for a hypothetical person if not for TB themselves? I think it would be interesting and useful to lay out the chain of logic as clearly as possible. The claim as I understand it seems pretty implausible, but if you're going to make it wouldn't it be useful to lay out why you believe it?

I think we are working from radically-different premises and should probably not share a government.

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