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 -
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