site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33996 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Okay, I know that's not what you meant. Gender-segregation of bathroom by sex-on-birth-certificate as opposed to apparent gender is new.

  • -10

It's not so much new, as non-existent. No one cares about your birth certificate, people care about what sex you are.

If no one cares, then why did the law under discussion get passed which does the following:

The bill amended state law to preempt any anti-discrimination ordinances passed by local communities and, controversially, compelled schools and state and local government facilities containing single-gender washrooms to only allow people of the corresponding sex as listed on their birth certificate to use them

Because they were hoping the sex listed on their birth certificate is going to correspond to their sex.

My understanding of the social norm is that people would be unhappy if someone who appeared to be a woman entered the men's bathroom or if someone who appeared to be a man entered the women's bathroom. I find it hard to believe that instead of going by appearance, checking sex recorded on government issued ID is something that would have occurred to anyone prior to this Culture War fight.

My understanding of the social norm is that people would be unhappy if someone who appeared to be a woman entered the men's bathroom

This strongly contradicts my experiences in men's restrooms. Women seem rather entitled to using the men's room when theirs is occupied, with the concern being for their privacy and safety rather than the men's even when arguments against it are made.

Yeah, no way. You're saying that pre-, say, 2010, if a masculine looking woman went to the women's bathroom, someone got upset, and she pulled out her ID to prove she's female, people would still be upset at her that she didn't go to the men's room?

I'm saying that I can't imagine "pulling out her ID" ever being a step in resolving that conflict.

I can totally believe a person with ambiguous gender presentation not being welcome in either bathroom.

Why not? It was an easy and relatively non-intrusive way of providing some sort of confirmation for your birth sex.

In any case, the only way your original claim would be true, is if people were still upset upon getting the confirmation.

Progressives use the word "gender" to mean some sort of inherent essence of manness or womanness, that is seperate from your body, rather than a synonym for biological sex. So he used the different meanings of the word to jokingly claim you're agreeing with him.

Further, he believes the separation of bathrooms/locker rooms/etc. has always been done on the gender-as-inherent-essence basis, and that it's the conservatives who were trying to change the rules recently.

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