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 -
I've written an article in which I discuss a somewhat common idea regarding the idea of trans people "existing" [1]. Some trans rights activists (TRAs) refer to denying the statement "transwomen are women" as denying the existence of trans people. Another manifestation of this is when people argue that denying that transwomen are women is threatening to transwomen's existence. The same applies to transmen of course. I argue that these arguments rely on ambiguity in language about "existence." Denying the existence of transwomen seems very silly because that is an unusual way to describe rejecting that a transwoman actually is a woman. Phrasing this as a threat to existence evokes thoughts of genocide. I think this is another case of language being used in an unusual way that is misleading, although perhaps not intentionally. This description of "anti-trans" attitudes should be avoided as it is not accurate and morally charged in a misleading way.
[1] https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/do-transgender-people-exist
My first exposure to this type of argument was actually with tumblr's fat acceptance crowd, way way back in the mists of TiA. I witnessed one of them claiming that the existence of diets, and the fact that doctors, among other people, encourage fat people to go on them, and therefore become no longer fat, meant that a genocide was being perpetrated against fat people by society itself. All of society. I can't recall the date, but this has to have been more than 5 years ago at this point.
This torture of language does become very tiresome. Any good ideas on how to call out and shut down this particular dis-ingenuity, perhaps?
Don't forget the people who are against deafness and autism cures for similar reasons. That one absolutely infuriates me. I don't care what people say, being deaf (or autistic) is objectively something broken about your body and worse than getting it fixed. One can personally decide that they would rather stay that way, and that's their right. But people who want to deny that choice even being available to others? They aren't just wrong about what constitutes genocide, they're complete assholes because they're trying to stop sick people from getting better.
I think it's worth trying to empathize with these people. Consider this previous discussion on some comments by Matthew Cortland, where he vociferously argues against the concept of QALYs, because as a disabled person, QALYs value his life less than that of someone who isn't disabled.
On the one hand, it is devastating to be told that you're not an entire person, even in an accounting sense.
On the other, when you're doing a utilitarianism, either you're going to count disabled people less than non-disabled ones, or you're going to see nothing wrong with deafening someone, or blinding them, and so on.
The silliest part of the anti-QALY argument also means that its not worth spending money to help disabled people, since we can't count their health as being less. The QALY is mostly an attempt to quantify health for resource prioritisation, but most critics don't believe there should be prioritisation at all. Either the societal health budget should be infinite, or they don't consider it at all.
More options
Context Copy link
I think your argument makes sense, but you're also talking about something very different from me. You seem to be addressing the position "a person should not be counted as worth less because they're deaf (autistic, etc)". I have no quarrel with that position at all (I agree with it). My beef is with the position "a person should not be cured of being deaf (autistic, etc) because that is destroying the person they were". That position is something I find morally abhorrent, because it is in effect preventing others from getting better (even if the intentions are pure).
Also, tbh I think your post is as much a strong argument against utilitarianism as anything else. I think utilitarianism has its place, but I think that it is actually pretty horrifying and immoral when applied at any sort of scale. Give me deontology or virtue ethics any day of the week!
Yeah, but by saying those things should be cured you are implying (not deliberately) that being deaf or autistic is lesser than. People who argue those things have usually made being deaf or autistic part of their identity, they have communities they have built their lives around that would cease to exist without their disability - and (this is a bit harsh but I can't find other words atm) those communities make their disability a strength, something special and unique to them that the rest of the world can't share. Learning that your child will never be a part of your world - worse, will become yet another normal who looks down on you for it - would be soul crushing. I'm not saying you are wrong, I don't think you are, but I do wish there was another way.
Edit: clarity
Well yes, of course it's less than (ideal). It's an illness. People aren't lesser for having the illness, of course. And if they want to keep it, that's certainly their prerogative. But to say "we shouldn't cure these conditions because that implies having them is lesser" is like saying "we shouldn't cure polio because that implies having polio is lesser". I wouldn't accept the latter argument and I don't accept the former, either.
I don't think that was the argument grendel was making, and it wasn't the argument I was making. I was just explaining why they take it so hard, and why I don't view them as morally abhorrent for taking that position - even though, absent their situation, I probably would.
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