site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To perhaps bring this back to more familiar Culture War ground I think the desire to accommodate dietary restrictions springs from the same place as the desire to use preferred pronouns: the perception that it's the courteous thing to do, that it would be rude to do otherwise. Underlying this is a belief that society ought to change in certain ways to accommodate individuals living their lives the way they would prefer to, and that we as individuals have some responsibility to create that space for others. Exactly what we should accommodate in what circumstances is a question on which underlying theories differ but I think this is the general motivating principle.

ETA:

After reading some other replies I'm wondering how much of a left/right divide on social issues is about who, when, and how has an obligation to accommodate others. It seems to me right-coded non-libertarian positions tend towards the individual having an obligation to alter their behaviors to conform with wider society while more left-coded positions tend towards society (really other people) altering so as to accommodate individuals.

After reading some other replies I'm wondering how much of a left/right divide on social issues is about who, when, and how has an obligation to accommodate others. It seems to me right-coded non-libertarian positions tend towards the individual having an obligation to alter their behaviors to conform with wider society while more left-coded positions tend towards society (really other people) altering so as to accommodate individuals.

I think this is an astute way to generalize it and I'm glad someone put it in a less boo outgroup framing. It fits nicely with the often smug "Just be a good person" frustration I hear from progressives when there is pushback against what for lack of a better term I'd call pathological inclusiveness. For the most part it's fairly harmless - 99% of the time the people hosting dinner parties that have to accommodate every currently conceived allergy are progressives themselves and they get a kind of pleasure out of being accommodating. It plays into their self image as a good person to readily take on these tasks for others and I've long since learned never to tell a woman who wants to do something for me that they shouldn't bother.

This also fits into a thing I often have trouble articulating about why it's sometimes difficult to argue against this class of progressive values. On the abstract level I think my position is correct but when you're in a room full of progressives and the topic of trans people come up everyone else is affirming and validating how much of a good person everyone else there is for supporting trans people it's very difficult to speak up and say "Hey actually I don't think this whole trans thing is such a good idea, have you considered the epistemic problems with differentiating between the qualia of correctly or incorrectly believing you are a different gender" people do not say "hey that's an interesting point I haven't thought of before, let me think about it and we can have an open discussion". They say "hey man, why are you being an asshole? You made Astra cry and feel unsupported. People kill themselves because of people like you".

It's nearly impossible to penetrate this kind of love bombing with unpleasant truths. And on the meta level it incentivizes the exact grievance porn that I so often perceive of the left. Progressive type people see themselves as helping the downtrodden and it's deep in their self conception that they're the type of person that helps the downtrodden, but they've also formed an immune system against even questioning claims of being downtrodden. From my perspective they're doing the equivalent of giving a kid as much sugar as they ask for, each extra spoon full is the kindest path in the moment but it's a road to diabetes paved with good intentions.

Anyways I've rambled a bit but thank you again for putting this the way you have, it's allowed some things to click for me.

"hey man, why are you being an asshole? You made Astra cry and feel unsupported. People kill themselves because of people like you".

Think of all the emissions that they won't emit. It will help fight with climate change. And open space for immigrants and will alleviate a bit the housing crisis and unaffordability of the homes.

I think there are a few different things going on in the social interaction you describe.

I think you're giving the average trans-supporting progressive too much credit (or maybe expecting too much). I doubt they have a fully worked out theory of gender and its metaphysics, epistemics, etc. I'm someone fairly steeped in trans academic literature and I'm not sure I do! Their understanding of trans issues is not necessarily part of a fully theorized conception of gender, its more likely a surface understanding that they use to get by with supporting their friend. The purpose of the beliefs isn't necessarily having a complete theory of gender, it's understanding what their friend needs to feel and be supported, because they care about their friend.

The social context of the discussion is also important. Imagine you were at the gym with some friends. One of your friends is going to try for a new one rep max, they're going to lift some amount of weight they never have before. So all your other friends are hyping your one friend up, telling them they can do this, they've got it, etc. Then you interject with a comment describing how, based on previous lifts, they probably can't do it and may injure themselves. Your comment may be true and correct but I can see how people would think the comment was unwelcome. The conversation that was occurring had a particular purpose that was not necessarily saying true things, but hyping your friend up and making them feel better. Similarly if the purpose of the conversation involving your trans friend was to comfort or support them, I can see how a comment calling into question those acts may be unwelcome. This isn't to say such comments are never appropriate. If you were having a dispassionate discussion with your friend about what their one rep max should be, or about how or whether to support trans individuals, such comments may be appropriate but it is very much a social context thing. I'm sure this can be a frustrating experience, especially if you rarely or never have the conversations on topics you want to have that are relevant to those conversations you do have.

It's nearly impossible to penetrate this kind of love bombing with unpleasant truths. And on the meta level it incentivizes the exact grievance porn that I so often perceive of the left. Progressive type people see themselves as helping the downtrodden and it's deep in their self conception that they're the type of person that helps the downtrodden, but they've also formed an immune system against even questioning claims of being downtrodden. From my perspective they're doing the equivalent of giving a kid as much sugar as they ask for, each extra spoon full is the kindest path in the moment but it's a road to diabetes paved with good intentions.

It seems a bit hyperbolic to say progressives have an immune system to claims of being downtrodden. I can think of several groups that progressives would (and do) not believe when they claim to be downtrodden. Rather, progressives may be too focused on claims of being downtrodden based in history as opposed to the present. Though, I believe most groups progressive regard as downtrodden today have a pretty good case.

The purpose of the beliefs isn't necessarily having a complete theory of gender, it's understanding what their friend needs to feel and be supported, because they care about their friend.

Which is nice, but their friend may not be my friend and I don't care about their delicate feelings (beyond basic civility). So okay, Astra is in the room, maybe don't broach the topic. But if I'm having this conversation and somebody pipes up "Hey, don't be an asshole, suppose someone who's trans heard you this would make them cry, you're the reason trans people kill themselves", then I think not caring about the imaginary feelings of a hypothetical person who is not there is acceptable. Is there or is there not an epistemic problem? If there are no subjects that cannot be questioned in the quest for truth, then that applies to the sacred cows of the left as well as the right.

One possible problem is that conversations or discussions generally require mutual consent of the parties engaged in the discussion. If you don't care about the hypothetical feelings of people who aren't present, but your interlocutors do, it seems likely to me they will decline to engage in that conversation with you. Now, maybe you would prefer they agreed with your preferred conversational norms but there is not really a good way to force those norms on other people. If you want to have a discussion on some topic with particular individuals you need conversational norms that are acceptable to all those individuals. Maybe for some topics and some individuals this is impossible, in which case you need to find alternate people to discuss with.

If there are no subjects that cannot be questioned in the quest for truth, then that applies to the sacred cows of the left as well as the right.

Of course.

The social context of the discussion is also important...

I think we're mainly in agreement, I don't actually interrupt the love bombing. But sometimes it is not so clear that the lift isn't dangerous. On the bench at what weight does interjecting about danger into the hype session make sense? If the person has only ever benched a plate and is reaching for 155lbs of course you'd be a jerk, that's well within reason. But two plates? Three? They could actually die if the spotter slips up.

But even that doesn't quite fit, I know that lifting three plates is still theoretically possible, and a good goal even if it's probably beyond this friend today. What if instead of training at all they're getting those ridiculous synthol injections on the theory that they actually make them stronger. And there is a popular movement with the slogan "synthol makes you strong" that everyone chants as this poor fellow asks not to be spotted.

I think these shibboleths come from a desire to be kind and good and helpful. But I don't think they are kind or good or helpful. This delusion is hurting their friend and it will hurt others as they normalize it.

It seems a bit hyperbolic to say progressives have an immune system to claims of being downtrodden

Yes I do think I overreached there. As I said I have trouble articulating my trouble with this pathological empathy. There is something there but it evades my grasp.

Then you interject with a comment describing how, based on previous lifts, they probably can't do it and may injure themselves. Your comment may be true and correct but I can see how people would think the comment was unwelcome.

The tough love drill Seargent/coach that tells the recruit what he needs to hear is a beloved character.

We all need like one of that person in our friend group. It's a niche...the kind but very blunt person.

"Dude, you've only done, fucking, 225, and you're going for fucking 315? Shit, man, that's dumb as fuck...OK, I'll spot you, but again. This is dumb as hell. Mike, could you get over here, get on this end of the bar?"

Much more so for red tribe/conservative types than blue tribe/progressive types, in my experience. The latter often perceive that archetype as just being an asshole.

Agreed, and it fits with the whole ‘conservatives want the government to be daddy, liberals want the government to be mommy’ meme from the late 2000’s. Red tribers are simply a lot more comfortable with being unpleasant for the sake of something more important, and view it that comfort as an important part of being an adult. By contrast, blue tribers tend to see making those kinds of decisions as the sort of thing that should be solely up to the individual, and not subject to pressure.

He is an asshole. But one that is ultimately on your side.