site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32603 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.

Somewhere downthread, or perhaps last week, conversion therapy was described as akin to the Ludovico treatment from A Clockwork Orange. Let's say that this assessment is plausible. Why hasn't an effective version been developed for some (not necessarily gay male) sexual preferences? Surely there is no shortage of adults who would like to reprogram themselves but lack the means to do so.

I agree. According to this study on identical twins, the concordance of homosexuality is in the ballpark of 65%. There may be some environmental factor there. For me it is interesting that we now have a situation where biological sex is supposed to be fluid and sexuality is supposed to be ingrained and outside of being able to be changed.

If there is no such thing as having the wrong sexuality for one's body, it does not look like a contradiction or "interesting" to me that attempts to change it are akin to conditioning a dog to flinch when it sees its formerly favorite treats.

Sure, it is not “wrong” to have certain sexuality, similarly how it is not inherently wrong to be certain sex. The left is all about individual power and choice - if somebody wants to become straight or gay, why not explore ways how to do it? They are willing to do it for the sake of sex/gender.

I would like to see the reactions of various groups if the left one day said "you know what? fine, sexuality is a choice, and we're going to give children a choice to go to a straight->gay conversion camp, complete with all the features of gay->straight conversion camps".

Judging by the latest veritas leaks re. passing out butt plugs in LGBT class, I think that's just called "school" now.

Not any more than handing out condoms in school is "straight conversion camp". After all, condoms primarily serve heterosexual couples by acting as birth control (pregnancy is the most common STD by orders of magnitude). And yet, I don't see any progressives complaining about that blatant bias.

Edit: now that I think about it, I can remember a few examples of schools that allegedly functioned as de facto gay conversion camps. British boarding schools 100 years ago, to be exact. Maybe they still are.

Given the prevalence of female birth control (every sexually active girl I knew in middle school was already on it), condoms mostly serve to avoid STDs, and the messaging seems to have changed to focus on that

Pregnancy is not the most common STD unless you include intentional pregnancy, which certainly shouldn't be counted as a disease. There are like 10 people with an STD for every 1 teen pregnancy.

"Are"? Well, in that case I'd thank the condoms for that. I assume those who are conscientous enough to wrap it would also be less susceptible to catching STDs even without condoms.

More comments

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