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 -
Weird, worked when I tested it. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-53141759
Looks like I put an extra 9 at the end instead of ), it's right above the parenthesis on my phone keyboard.
No such implication was made, but I wouldn't call it psuedo religious beciase there isn't any meaningful religious beliefs to trans idealogy.
O9A is centered around their religious beliefs. They believe in "dark gods" and hold explicit spiritual/cosmological views.
Alternative, most extremely violent people are broken to begin with and often don't need too much to push them over the edge. His messy life, beliefs and actions are incoherent and hard to understand just like most psychotic crazy people are.
We expect to see terror attacks from the radicalized Islamists, but not your normal everyday Muslim. Even in Gaza, probably one of the most terrorist aligned nations, most people are not active fighters. Throughout history this same thing can be seen, most citizens in Nazi Germany were not actively involved in the Holocaust and most citizens during the cultural revolution weren't involved in killings.
Likewise wars are almost always fought by a fraction of the population without needing serious drafting in place to force people to fight. Almost 2/3rds of US servicemen in WW2 were drafted for example.
Humans in general are just rather peaceful. Populations might be willing to turn an eye to violence, but they rarely engage in much themselves. Most violent crime is done by a very small portion of repeat offenders.
Yeah and they're just as dumb.
I've been speaking about this type of issue since I was an older teen seeing Gamergate get called a harassment campaign because a few people sent death threats going "Hey that's not very fair, the large majority of people aren't engaged in threat sending just because a few did! In fact it could even be just one insane people sending several".
I said it about the 2023 pension protests in France "Hey, there's a million people marching you can't expect every single one to be completely moral and good. You shouldn't point to a person being bad and use it to blame the others there"
I said it about Jan 6th "Sure a few people were violent and those ones deserve to be locked up, but your average protestor didn't engage in a crime and it's unfair to say that they're a violent group"
I said it about police during BLM (the large majority of cops do not engage in killing innocents) and about BLM protestors (the large majority of protestors did not engage in looting or arson or other crime).
I've said it about Xianjang and the Uyghurs, I've said it about both the population of Gaza and the population of Israel (most of them are rather peaceful on both sides), I've said it about Russia and pushed back against calling their population orcs despite that I support Ukraine in war and think we should aid them way more!
And I'll keep saying it about other groups, like trans people now. People don't deserve blame for things they don't do, and they don't deserve blame for happening to share group/geographical area/etc with someone who commits violence. Especially because of the Chinese robber fallacy, but even without it.
In my opinion, the belief that "everyone has a gender identity wholly distinct from their biological sex, knowable only to themselves and which can never be questioned by an outside observer" is an unfalsifiable dualist belief, functionally indistinguishable from the belief in an immaterial soul.
Yes, exactly. Which flatly contradicts your previous ironclad confidence that it was his participation in Nazi fora specifically which drove him to violence. But I'm glad we now agree on this point.
I agree with you: people shouldn't be blamed for things they didn't do. They certainly shouldn't experience guilt-by-association just because they belong to the same immutable identity category as someone else who did a bad thing. (Although I'm not persuaded that being trans meets the "immutable" criterion.) Absolutely no argument here. I have friends and acquaintances who are trans, and I don't want to see them being stigmatised just because some people who happen to identify the same way they do committed horrific crimes halfway across the planet.
The point I was trying to make in my previous comment wasn't that "being trans should be treated as a red flag for potential violent behaviour" but rather that "radical trans rhetoric may be a potentially concerning memeplex". I don't think it's controversial to assert that people are more likely to commit violence in the name of certain memeplexes than others. If you're looking at a neo-Nazi skinhead and a dude whose entire degree of political engagement boils down to "legalise weed 4/20", you don't get any prizes for guessing which of the two is more likely to go out and beat up a Pakistani teenager minding his own business. Most Muslims are peaceful people, and yet the number of suicide bombers per capita is vastly higher among Muslims than among, say, Buddhists. We could debate until the cows come home why this is: are violent people attracted to ideologies/memeplexes/communities in which violence is encouraged? Most religious people tend to follow the same religion as at least one of their parents, so when a religious person commits an act of violence, it's impossible for us to control for whether it was the religion that "caused" them to do it, or if they had a genetic predisposition towards violence. But in spite of this, nobody thinks it's controversial to assert that certain memeplexes/ideologies/communities are more closely associated with violence than others. If you had a teenaged son and he started spending a lot of time on Stormfront, that would be cause for concern in a way it wouldn't if he started spending a lot of time on a D&D forum. This is true in spite of the fact that I am fairly confident that the overwhelming majority of people who post on Stormfront have never committed a violent crime.
The whole point of my previous comment was that the question "is the radical trans memeplex a potential red flag for violence, in the same way that certain other memeplexes are?" is a question which is worth investigating. I'm emphatically not asserting that it is. I'm emphatically not stating that if your teenaged son starts spending a lot of time in trans communities, that's exactly as concerning as it would be if he started spending a lot of time on Stormfront. I'm emphatically not stating that if your teenaged son came out as trans, you should be concerned about him potentially committing a violent act in the near future, in the same way you would if he started hanging around with skinheads.
But I am saying that there is a particular strain of trans activism which, to an outside observer, looks really scary and seems to actively revel in the glorification of violence, particularly gearing up with assault rifles and attacking unbelievers (and specifically, unbelieving female people). In the past three years, we've seen two acts of indiscriminate Columbine-style violence committed by perpetrators who may well have been active in this community, along with a crime spree committed by people (the Zizians) who were certainly active within it. The law of parsimony demands that we investigate whether or not these perpetrators' participation in these radical communities may have contributed to their decision to commit these horrendous crimes, in the same way it would if there were three unrelated crimes committed over the course of three years by, say, the members of a new religious community. I don't think it's good enough to just throw our hands up in defeat and say "whatever, there will always be mentally ill people and these things are impossible to predict". That, to me, amounts to putting one's head in the sand, intentionally overlooking potentially relevant patterns just because they make us uncomfortable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link