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 -
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar yesterday, a culture war-y case about Colorado’s law banning talk therapists from discussing “conversion therapy” with minor clients.
The oral argument ended up hinging on a different culture war question: is strictly talk therapy – without prescriptions, shocks, clinical analysis, official diagnosing, whatever – inherently medical? I.e., is addressing “mental health” through conversation really “health” at all, or is it something far simpler?
Colorado admitted a priest or a life coach could have the very conversations that it was banning therapists from partaking in; why would the difference in title suddenly change the classification of the act itself?
Some arguments tried to say that talk therapy is medical conduct because it triggers a physiological reaction in the brain, but all speech has the capacity to do that – someone telling you they love you can release dopamine and oxytocin; someone telling you “gross, no” after you ask them on a date can create a crushing response; etc. And yet, speech in a general sense continues to receive protections that conduct does not.
Does “medicine” need to be something that physically manipulates and alters the body? Does medicine need to be something directed towards solving an illness?
I can see the argument that mental health as addressed through a clinical diagnosis and prescriptions is medicine. But I am struggling to understanding talk therapy as falling into the medical category, in part because much of talk therapy isn’t related to the prevention, treatment, or cure of mental illness – a lot of talk therapy is simply asking for help with a difficult relationship, achieving a deeper understanding of self, or venting to someone who is trained to recognize self-perception road blocks.
Taking the view that medicine is about preventing/treating illness, it would be especially odd to view conversion therapy conversations as medical – after all, society has moved past viewing same-sex attraction as a disease, supposedly. So why then would conversations about attraction be medical in nature in this context? Is it from a larger need for therapy to be considered health more broadly?
This perhaps a bit of a tangent, but for a while I have struggled with the idea of 'conversion therapy'.
At the one end, it's easy to understand a minimalist definition of it, and why treatments that meet that minimum definition should be banned - we're talking about things like using electric shocks to artificially create aversions to certain sexual stimuli.
On the other, I have seen the phrase 'conversion therapy' to refer to any kind of treatment or even just conversation around the idea of a person abstaining from same-sex sexual contact. Some time ago I read a document with some personal stories from two progressive Christians describing their experiences with 'conversion therapy', and in both cases the so-called conversion therapy was just another Christian telling them that they shouldn't have sex with someone of their own gender. That kind of maximalist definition of conversion therapy is clearly absurd, and would ban certain kinds of speech.
I feel as though I have seen this gambit many times and that it ought to have a name. Definitional expansion? You start with something that is obviously bad, and you have a word for the thing that's obviously bad - conversion therapy, violence, racism, genocide, child abuse, and so on. Then you want to draw attention to some issues that might be related to the bad thing, but don't quite fit under the same heading, so you just use the same word, but expand its meaning, hoping that the negative affect the word is already loaded with will come along with you. So meat is murder, or words are violence, or immigration is genocide, or your pastor telling you that homosexuality is bad is conversion therapy, or telling your kids that Santa Claus is real is child abuse. Trivial use of the word eventually weakens its meaning and even attempts to use it in the original context, for the obviously bad thing, fall flat. This is why telling Republicans that they're racist is pointless now.
I can understand the initial impulse, from the activist direction. If you want to expand a cause or mobilise people, trying to hook into their pre-existing moral logic is a good idea. "Meat is murder" is a cliché now and I think it's ineffective, but I can see how it is a shorthand for a serious moral argument: meat-eating depends upon killing living creatures in a way that a vegetarian could argue is morally analogous to murder. But the more you use that tactic, the weaker the words become, and you undermine yourself.
Is there a word for this process? Or at least something to say when you notice somebody doing it?
This is the core of it. The activist in charge of enforcing this will consider everything conversion therapy. I think 10 years ago Jesse Singal covered a case like this in Canada. There was a gender clinic where the doctor simply let little girls and boys know "Hey, you can like boy things as a girl, and it doesn't mean you are a boy", and he was accused of conversion therapy and his clinic was shut down. Activist found someone willing to make much more lurid accusations against him, but then when Jesse Singal found that guy, and asked him about his experiences, it turned out it was a completely different doctor!
Rest assured, if this law stands, any course of treatment which fails to maximize trans outcomes will be considered "conversion therapy". I wouldn't be shocked if it even impacts de-trans individuals seeking care, as their doctors won't be able to provide "conversion therapy" to help them return to their natal sex, as best as is still available anyways.
This has been relevant to me in professional contexts - I don't want to get into specifics, but I have seen laws drafted on 'conversion therapy' that, if taken literally, would make it illegal for a pastor to pray with someone.
It's not that rare a situation that a religious person feels same-sex attraction, wants to resist that attraction and not act on it, and requests help and comfort from one of their spiritual authorities, or even just from brothers or sisters in the faith. Yet I have seen proposed laws that would criminalise that.
Because modern progressive culture sees that as analogous to praying with an anorexic for them to lose weight, ie abetting self-harm.
Which is funny since the progressive approach to trans issues is analogous to them cutting off an anorexic's body parts to help them lose weight.
‘Embrace good things, discourage bad ones’ is a popular policy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Concept creep.
Per Quillette, The Boy Who Inflated the Concept of 'Wolf'.
I’m not sure it qualifies as concept creep, but you can get countless examples if you search “wolf inflation.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Murderism
More options
Context Copy link
It’s like some kind of... some kind of two tiered argument castle thingy.
...okay, fair, that made me laugh.
Again, I don't think it's quite the same - the motte-and-bailey is a tactical move you make in an individual argument, whereas this is more like concept creep - but it is close enough that you got me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Child abuse" is poorly defined, but lying to your children is definitely bad, and I don't think this is nearly the trivial matter that people usually think of it as.
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—
Death waved a hand.
AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
GNU Terry Pratchett.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Santa is a harmless fantasy that kids get to believe in for a precious few years. I don't think it's in the least bad to encourage the belief.
More options
Context Copy link
Lying to your children isn't definitionally bad! We lie to children all the time.
Today I lied to my kids by telling them I was a pajama robot programmed with the mission of chasing down and pajamaing all the children. When I was a kid we played werewolf/mafia a lot in school.
There are all manner of imagination, pretenses, games, and kayfabes. If you don't teach your children that, you are not giving a key cognitive skill.
More options
Context Copy link
From "Children Believe Every Lie" by Eneasz Brodski:
If the Witnesses were sincere in their faith, they weren't lying to him. They were flagrantly, wilfully ignorant, but not technically lying.
More options
Context Copy link
He thinks he has left the faith, but he still sounds like a Witness.
yes_chad.jpg
I literally don't know a single kid who had the problems he had with it, and I strongly suspect his JW upbringing has to do with it (and/or autistic inclinations unsurprisingly inherited from his parents). Not saying there are none otherwise, but it's just extremely rare. The average kid play-pretends a lot naturally already, and they instinctively pick up on Santa being somewhere in the same area, but they're not sure. Then as they get older they notice further facts solidifying that impression, and maybe have a short, smug santa-isn't-real phase, but they quickly join in again on the play-acting ... because it's fun. The "santa-lie" is a great way to indirectly teach kids how to distinguish between truth and fantasy, and the fact that ultimately this is something you can only ever do yourself, for yourself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Given the social consequences of being a Santa-isn’t-real edgelord child, I think it may be poor parenting to spill the beans too early.
Before having kids I thought I was definitely not going to entertain Santa delusions, now I definitely am. Looking out for their social wellbeing is one of my big value-adds. Kids can’t anticipate how bad it would be for them to be generally whiny, smelly, angry, etc.
It's interesting, my earliest Santa memories were that St Nicholas was a real person, that we give gifts at Christmas because of his generous example, and that many people (including my Grandparents) liked to pretend to give gifts from St Nicholas (aka Santa Claus). But I don't remember ever spilling the beans to any other kids even accidentally.
Today my only regret is not learning about the Santa legend that he punched out a heretic (often Arius himself) at the Council of Nicaea earlier.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve done well doing well the “I can neither confirm nor deny the Santa Question” with my kids.
I also don’t make a big deal about Santa either so it works.
More options
Context Copy link
At what ages does one normally outgrow Santa belief in America? I never believed in Santa (I recall being told around the age of 4 or 5 and finding it absurd, especially since our family didn't have a chimney), but also, Korea didn't have as much of a Santa culture as America. I moved to America in 1st grade, and I don't recall my non-believing of Santa ever being something that even came up, so I figured that, by grade school age, kids had outgrown it. But it sounds like that's actually not the case?
Elementary school.
More options
Context Copy link
18, in my case.
I figured that if God is real, then reality is intrinsically magical anyway, and I may as well keep believing in Santa too.
More options
Context Copy link
8-10. Most parents put considerable effort into the appearance of "Christmas magic". There's an adorable age where they're old enough to question, but afraid of what they might find out. They'll test their parents and gossip among themselves. But my own were afraid that if I knew that they knew, then I might not bother with the presents ritual, so they pretended to believe longer. And once it was explicit, they solemnly accepted the responsibility to not break the kayfabe for their younger cousins.
If it's something you've been told since before you can walk, it takes a decent bit of development to get to the point where you notice the fact that it's completely incongruent with everything you know about the rest of the world. In a way, it's a method of gently teaching children that the only real magic is what we do ourselves.
This is the point where the potential harm is. If a child spends 1-2 years thinking "Santa breaks my model of reality but I can't think deeply about this because the presents will stop coming" then they are learning to suppress curiosity for fear of punishment.
FWIW, I understood that Santa was the same type of being as God and Jesus*, as opposed to the same type of being as my Mum or the Queen, as early as I remember having complex thoughts - certainly before age 6. Having been taught about Santa therefore made me less likely to accept Christianity as an older child (whether this is good or bad is unclear). I had Santa, God and Jesus in the same bucket as Mickey Mouse and Peter the High King of Narnia by the time I was 9.
* My parents were not Christian, but the local primary school was a C of E school so I was partially raised Christian
No way man, I think it's a great practice. You institute a society-wide gaslighting conspiracy toward children that involves nothing but generous rewards, but which is so fantastical that they're bound to figure it out eventually, and then you let nature take its course. Everyone learns that sometimes everyone else is just bullshitting, even if they really do mean well.
I wish we put this much effort into teaching everyone other equally important lessons.
Plus there's the part where you realize the conspiracy and then get to join in on it. I mean that feeling as a kid is the closest thing to being invited to join the Illuminati that any of us are likely to get. You've gained sufficient wisdom that the adults require your collaboration.
Just curious, do you have any specific lessons in mind here? The idea is at least intriguing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lesson successful, then. That 'harm' is a very valuable lesson of the world which failure to learn can lead to far greater harms.
Curiosity does bring forth risk. One can appeal to a just world protest that it shouldn't, but it certainly does. If a young child is curious what a hot stove feels like or a poisonous thing tastes like, they will find out the truth. Similarly, if you are excessively curious of a patron bringing gifts, those gifts may stop coming. But if you are excessively curious of a criminal, that criminal may harm you. If you are excessively curious into the affairs of a neighbor or associate, you may lose a friend or gain an enemy. If you are excessively curious about government secrets, you can be fined large amounts of money and spend a significant part of your time in a small box.
These are not new concepts or an unfortunate modern sensibility either. There are various fables in which the curiosity of children (or child-like substitutes) is the bringer of disaster or misfortune. This even extends to adults, where the experimentations of adults who are curious and ambitious brings forth great and terrible things.
Curiosity is not a virtue in isolation. It does entail risk. Learning that is a lesson befitting a young child. Learning what do with that knowledge, regardless of whether it is to embrace risk and move forward or to temper the curiosities of others, are the lessons befitting a young adult.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For what it's worth I put that one in because I have heard others talking about it. Personally I cannot remember ever believing that Santa was real, but neither can I remember ever being edgy about it. I can't remember anyone else ever believing that Santa was real either. My recollection of being that age is that of course we all knew it was a game of pretend, and of course we all played along with it for fun.
I may have been very atypical, I don't know. I have never thought about what to tell children about it myself. We'd probably just play the game, but I don't think I'd go to any real effort to hide the truth if a kid was curious.
When I was a very young kid I was disappointed that I wasn't allowed to ambush him and obtain evidence, like he was a cryptid. I was at the "sure I'll assume good faith, but" stage of developing skepticism. Good times.
More options
Context Copy link
I definitely believed Santa was real. I can't speak for the internal thoughts of anyone around me, but they didn't seem to be just going along, they seemed to believe it as well.
More options
Context Copy link
That's my recollection as well, that everyone was playing along including myself. It never felt like my parents were betraying my trust, but more like this was one thing that was an exception and it was okay to playfully lie about. And I can see how that can be a prosocial thing to teach kids. Of course, there might also be parents that go too far, insist too much on the reality of it all without enough winking, and actually cross the line into betraying their children' trust.
Ah, yes, the parents that give coal for questioning Santa.
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder, looking at some of the comments up-thread, if it's somthing peculiar to Americans? Do the rest of us treat it like fun make-believe to share with the kids, and for some reason it's just Americans in particular who take it extremely literally and obsess about genuinely convincing children with the most convincing illusion possible?
Or is it, for lack of a better way of putting it, about certain personality types, perhaps very detail-oriented or autistic ones? Maybe if you can't read social cues very well, are very literal-minded, and very trusting by nature, you take what's supposed to be make-believe, genuinely believe it, and then feel surprised and betrayed when you realise your mistake? It's possible that people like that are just overrepresented here and on rationalist-adjacent blogs.
Americans genuinely expect their preschoolers to actually believe, yes. Keeping up the illusion with older kids is going out of style but it still happens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Telling kids about Santa is actively good. On the most basic level, it is super fun and memorable. It gives them a shared experience with other kids, and a useful way to offload some of the authority strain of parenting (Yes, sweetie, I am here and can be tantrumed against, but Santa is a cold and merciless god who cares not for your tears, but judges you for them.)
And on the deeper level, it teaches kids that some things they are taught about the world are not true.
And on the deeper level, it teaches them that some of those lies are useful.
Now, telling my daughter that if she went into the basement then the Krampus would kidnap her in a sack and take her to Spain... that one might have done a touch of damage.
Ha! I told my kids that if they were good, Santa would give them a present. If they were bad, a lump of coal. And if they were really bad, Krampus would pick them up, put them in his sack, and carry them of.
They laughed and responded: you’re joking right?
I played around for a few minutes like it was real but ultimately told them that Krampus isn’t real. They had a fun time with it. And it showed they understood play and could figure out some things were absurd. Notably however they didn’t seem to question Santa haha
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Got to admit, of all the examples, that is not one I expected to occasion any controversy.
I was also somewhat tempted by "circumcision is child abuse" or "circumcision is surgical mutilation", though I think that's just the noncentral fallacy, rather than concepts being opportunistically expanded and diluted. It's also a proxy with a larger and more comprehensive argument behind it - that in general we seem to have a rule against unnecessary, permanent surgical procedures being done on children without their consent, or when they are unable to consent, and circumcision does not qualify as an exception to that rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, it clearly just means 'nobody with official sanction is allowed to countersignal LGBT'. That is what it means in practice.
More options
Context Copy link
Non-central fallacy is a related concept I remember coming up on SSC.
Motte-and-bailey is also a related concept.
I think that's a bit different - that's presenting a non-central member of a class as if it's the centre. That's something like what I'm talking about, but I have a process in mind.
Moral dilution, maybe?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link