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 -
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people. Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces. The dominant anthropological view in the west facilitates both and negates anything else. Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large. It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space. Those are the demonstrated values. You can claim dissidence, but you can't make assertions that go against these values and expect them to hold any weight.
DEI and CRT drama is irrelevant. There was a lot more pushback against civil rights than there's been against CRT or DEI. People had to be put to the barrel of a gun to accept that.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else. You have men and women, and also trans people. If the boundaries break down further, you will have something else. Just like America now has a lot more mix raced people than before. The aftermath of a successful struggle for human rights is never an argument against it.
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society. The prison system is broken. You can argue for the separation of men and women, just like you can argue for the separation of black and white or tall and short or strong and weak. But so long as the reason for those arguments is not based on safety and reduction of suffering, and instead tethered to misandry and transphobia, you have no rational leg to stand on.
I have done nothing else. On the flipside, I take it you are in favor of desegregation and argue that the fallout has been worth it for the benefit of anti-racism and human rights? Oh, right, that's not how things work. No one who argues for anything like that does so on the basis of its cost/benefit. It's about what's morally right and wrong.
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order. Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason. As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
You could use this exact argument in favor of trans women in womens prison. This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women. If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
Your analogies are going from bad to worse. This comparison would only make sense if you believed men (or women if we're discussing FTMs) are subhuman.
Your previous one made some sense. If you wanted some variety you could go with: "And a racist would believe he's not violating any rights, because he's in favor of providing 'seperate but equal' facilities". Except this also doesn't work, because you're not arguing in favor of desegregation. You want to keep segregation, but make a special exception for some men to be able to go into women's spaces.
Maybe. Or maybe the cause will land on the heap of other discarded progressive causes like eugenics, lobotomies, pedo acceptance, and psychosurgery, that progressives are now acting like they never happened or weren't their ideas.
It's relevant to the argument that your view is universal. "Dominant" is not that. Dominance doesn't even require a majority.
I have to say, it sure does take the sting out of your civil rights comparisons to hear you explicitly promote ideas that could only make sense to a racist.
All this would mean is that we live in a racist society. That shouldn't be a surprising conclusion for you.
This statement makes absolutely no sense, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when it comes from the same movement that gave us "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".
Well, if they're a seperate category, and want a separate space, I could be convinced of going along with that.
And you don't find it at all surprising that basically every single society came up with sex segregated spaces?
Anyway, let's go with this. So why aren't you advocating for desegregation instead of keeping segregation? Even if we apply the Critical Theory "privilege plus power" framework, that only implies mixed spaces and trans spaces, not keeping men's and women's spaces.
So back when the Yaniv case was coming to light, you were arguing that the waxing salons were in the wrong, and these women should be legally mandated to wax those feminine balls, right?
The modern western order survived just fine without trans rights until yesterday, so it can survive, and even flourish without them indefinitely.
Uh... no. Being for trans rights is completely irrational. Whether or not it's immoral will depend on how your ground your morality.
Every single comparison to civil rights that you drew so far has failed, and you refused to engage with the argument.
I mean if you're trying to get me to admit that I think it's more important to protect women than it is to protect men, and especially women suffering at the hands of men, ya got me.
Please represent my views correctly: I don't care about it to the point where I'd expand infinite resources to protect them from harm at their own hands.
Not understanding something doesn't make it bad. Racists otherize non-whites. Transphobes otherize trans people. You assert that trans people "can't" access sex segregated areas. Just like a racist asserted black people can't access race segregated areas. History tells us how that story ends. I briefly touched on why history is moving in this direction, using the historical analogy of civil rights as an example. That being said, Trans people and black people are not the same, but pointing that out when it's not relevant to the point being made is fruitless.
The trans movement seeks to insert a 'third' or more categories and break the sex binary where needed. To that extent the trans movement is categorically less radical than the civil rights movement. To follow the black/white analogy, it only seeks to assert a minority be counted as a different race. Sometimes the abolition of certain race defined aspects of western society is deemed to be what is best for society. Sometimes 'positive' segregation is deemed to be the best.
By the same token, as societal rules and norms based on race can exist in a good or a bad way, gender and gender expression can be set up in a good way or a bad way. Trans rights seek to make them more good than bad for trans people. You might say they are wrong, or making things bad for other groups, but, again, that same argument was levied by racists in the 50's and 60's. Given the track record of such arguments, coming from people with no power or any mainstream moral weight of support behind them, I'm still left wondering why you even imagine anyone should take your assertions with any weight.
Hopefully this helps elucidate the point of the analogies.
Now, to broach a wider topic of contention and why being against trans rights is being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason:
Society has a bias. It's biased against certain ideas in favor of others. This bias is not coincidental. There's a fabric of logic* (excuse the poetry)* that this bias is woven on to. I don't care for arguments against threads being woven into the fabric when that's exactly what this fabric is made for. It's all it will ever do.
Or maybe you prefer a different description of this phenomenon? The progressive arch of history? Robert Conquest's Second Law? Cthulu always swims left?
I'm not arguing from a position of personal moral claims. I'm just looking at the fabric and what's been sewn into it. I then see people wrapped in the fabric telling me they're against the very thing they're wearing.
I'm arguing from the perspective of the totality of institutional power, the direction of media and propaganda, the whole modern western canon as it exists living and breathing today. From that perspective you are wrong. You are against morality, rationality and reason. Just like the previous villains of history.
Never said anything is bad on the ground that I don't understand it.
Two problems. First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
The other problem is that you were just telling me a moment ago, that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
Well, I'm not interested in talking to your interpretation of institutional power, I'm interested in talking to you. If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement. Secondly, I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
This is exactly correct. Yet people still support gay marriage. Even if, hyperbolically, that's the 'slippery slope' we are sliding on.
I'm not following. What ties progressivism together, for lack of a better term, is not just the breakdown of boundaries but also a perversion of them.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that perspective if you accept enough of their priors.
I'll take your word that this is true, but what's the relevance?
There's no cost benefit analysis of desegregation or whether fighting the Nazis was worth it. 80% of people, at the very least, just default towards the fake progressive history. There's not a single person who can claim rationality whilst being wrapped up in all that religious dogma. There are no skeptical or rational or less wrong people doing tonally amoral utilitarian deepdives into these topics, measuring minorities in 'utils'. In fact, every single one of the allegedly rational will kowtow to the religion of our age as soon as these topics are brought up.
Should I consider your or myself a different species from the rest? Just ride my individualist ego to the heavens rather than assume that I just fell for a different religion?
This seems like it's deflecting from the argument we were debating all this time. You were saying that anyone against trans rights is using the same type of argument as people arguing against Civil Rights. By analogy, this would mean you have to focus on the people arguing against pedo acceptance, and say that they are using the exact same arguments, that homophobes used to. If you believe there is a flaw in this reasoning, then you now see the flaw in your original argument.
That's an interesting take, but for me to accept it would require the kind of outgroup-mindreading that is discouraged here. In any case I don't think this can be derived from the progressive movement's own statements about themselves. Even in private they seem to be more about abolishing boundaries than perverting (unless there are even more super-secret forums, than the ones I'm aware of).
That's not very helpful, because it's true of nearly every single perspective, possibly including those of clinical schizophrenics. What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
You've completely misunderstood me. I don't set myself apart from the rest, and if I did, I'd be putting myself below the religious, not above. My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one. It's perfectly possible to have rational conversation with a believer, it's even possible to have one about the core tenets of their religion, but religious conversations often devolve into simply reciting doctrine and expecting the other person to instantly bow down, or something. I think this is what happened here. If a religious person wants a rational conversation about the core tenets of their beliefs, they need to come to the conversation with the awareness of the inferential gap between the participants.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's, but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
I don't see the deflection. People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals. Nor did popular support much to save segregation. It's about the context. Rosa Parks didn't matter until a bunch of media outlets made her a front page story. By that point the 'argument' presented is: Should nice old ladies who are no different from us except for the amount of melanin in their skin be allowed to sit where they want on a bus they paid to be on? And only inane morons would ever bother to engage with that argument in the negative. Same goes for respectable men walking down a New York street wearing suit and tie demanding equal rights under the law. Why should they be deprived of holding their loved ones hand during their final moments on a hospital bed?
The entire discourse is premade. All the relevant points of contention that predicate the 'arguments' accepted by all relevant parties. So long as you exist within that context without recognizing and rejecting it, all the arguments are irrelevant. We're just a few decades of well made movies and documentaries away from lowering the age of consent by a few years. The only hope against that outcome is that the progressive disgust response activates for enough of them at some point to be against that. Outside of that, the march of progress will continue.
I personally don't believe that people who argue against trans rights but not the overarching context have a leg to stand on. They can make no claim to any of these things. To that end I agree more with the trans people. At least they are consistent to the program. It's also super easy. I can farm downvotes but no coherent arguments that don't boil down to an essential admission of transphobia. If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash. And all the people who pretend to stand on the principles of biology and whatever would practically vanish.
I mean, it's practically convenient that this place mods out the heat that keeps the progressive flame alive. Otherwise dissent from progressive orthodoxy would become a bannable offense in just a few months. It's why this place is here and not on reddit.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context. The progressives will just keep on with their lies. History will remember anti-LGBTQA+ people as hateful losers, just like we remember those who were against segregation.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know. I don't think it's possible. Nor should it be, if that persons faith is true and they value and protect it.
Not unbelievers, people who want to cast away the parts of the religion that inconvenience them, but hold the parts that don't. I can't demonstrate that without bonking them on the head with a Bible. Progressive morality is the dominant morality. Not just as words on the internet, but what guides 80% of people as they listen to the radio, watch TV or do anything. People then want to carve out special caveats for their own predilections but still scoff at those who do the same for all the rest of progressive fake morality, rationality, reason and history.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty. To what grand moral narrative would you appeal? It's partially why I make an appeal to rape in mens prisons and the fallout of desegregation. How can trans people be a bigger issue than that?
You don't? A straightforward answer to the question would give some indication of what you would think or do in the situation, but for some reason your actual answer only says what you think is likely to happen, and says nothing about your personal judgement of the outcome. Which is awfully convenient given your later argument about people rejecting the "overarching context" when it's suits them. That's a very peculiar kind of blindness that you have, for sure.
Unless they lose that particular fight for a second time, in which case we'll come back to pretending they never wanted it again.
It's a good thing I'm not trying to save marriage from homosexuals during the course of this conversation, then.
Much like your totally not racist statement about which races it's ok to segregate from, this one sure takes the sting out of any talk of "transphobia". Unless you think that being trans is a mental illness in and of itself, these aren't the majority of trans people, and they cause more backlash than the mentally ill unpassable 40-somethings.
The conversation so far:
- The march of progress is inevitable!
- No it's not. There are several issues where "progress" was brought to a halt, we just pretend to not remember them, or that they weren't "progress".
- Ok, let's say I believe you, how is that relevant?
- Because it shows that the march of progress is not inevitable...
- But it is inevitable!!!
And as as far as I can tell the "overarching context" is the same thing as "the inevitable march of progress" so that argument was entirely circular.
My entire point is that you're not doing that. First you act like you want to have a rational conversation, when it's pointed out how your arguments and comparisons make no sense, you switch to religious proclamations and start playing the preacher bonking the unfaithful with a bible, and finally when I switch to questions more appropriate for a religious conversation and ask you about your sincerely held beliefs, you suddenly adopt a passive disembodied voice and act like the discussed beliefs aren't even yours. The only time when it looks like you might mention something about your beliefs, you talk about what you don't believe and immediately pivot to criticizing others.
I'm game for any kind of conversation sincere you want to have, but this is just trolling.
It's pretty easy. Both sides have to want it, and be aware of the inferential gaps between each other. You can't make someone do it though, and the entire point I was making is that you don't seem to be showing any desire for having one.
Maybe to you, but progressives wouldn't be making dissent a bannable offense if it felt empty do them.
The march of progress is inevitable when it is not opposed outside the context that enables and drives it. I spent most of my last post going over this. As an example, eugenics didn't end as a permissible idea because of an argument based on a common understanding of human biology and genetics. There was instead a giant paradigm shift that supersedes any objective truth value about biology.
Progressives and true believers don't engage in discussions. There are plenty of examples of islamic preachers screaming at heretics, or SJW's screaming at dissent. Not a lot of much else. On a more macro level, Islam bans heresy when it can, so to do progressives. You can argue in theory that you could talk and dissent over ideas with true believers over their faith, but in practice that's not the case. That's because dissent to a true believer is empty in the sense of relevant intellectual content, but filled to the brim with hostile intent. Only an enemy would say something like that, and enemies must be destroyed.
You don't talk to people that draw pictures of Mohammed to understand where they are coming from. Language is just a tool to get them to do what you already know is true. The alternative is to kill them. This is also very evident in progressive forums were talk of debates or discussion is only understood in the form of propaganda. Make your side look good, make other side look bad. The truth has already been decided.
As for me trolling, no. I'm not. I've been reiterating the same point again and again. I've stated that my position is that adhering to progressive orthodoxy whilst being against the consequences is counterproductive.
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