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 -
Those two definitions are going to sometimes return conflicting signals. One definition is essentially the definition of a crime or a sin, a thief is someone who takes something that isn't theirs. The other is the definition of a predilection or a disease, a kleptomaniac is someone who constantly desires to steal things. Conflating the two definitions leads to communications breakdowns.
A frat boy who wakes up still drunk and drives his lifted Jeep Wrangler home and kills a moron cyclist riding his bike at 4am* is a killer, in the sense that his actions caused the death of another, and he is guilty of the appropriate crime of manslaughter. But he isn't a killer in the sense that a hitman or a gangbanger is, or even in the sense that a Navy SEAL who has never committed a crime** is a killer. We learn nothing about the frat boy's (literal) killer instinct or bloodlust from his drunk driving disaster, it has little predictive value as to the risk that he will kill again. Vehicular manslaughter, as a crime of killing, is mostly non-predictive of a tendency towards killing in other situations. Similarly, special categories exist, killing in the military is poorly predictive of killing in civilian life.
Normally these two definitions of gay will work together. If you want to have sex with a dude, your attraction algorithm probably contains other dudes. But having never been to Thailand or spoken with a ladyboy customer, idk what their attraction algorithms look like. Certainly I doubt most of the gay men I know want to have sex with a post-surgery (breasted) tranny.
*Me
**lol
So your argument is basically if they have implants its not 'gay'?
No my argument is that a guy who is attracted to a tranny prostitute with good tits is more likely to also be attracted to Sydney Sweeney than he is to be attracted to Jaxson Dart; so calling him gay would generally fail as a predictive model of the world, he isn't likely to act like the other people I call gay.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad.
I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. If my uncle had wheel's he'd be a bike. People who have homosexual sex can be defined as gay. I think its silly to needlessly add qualifiers. It is LGBT* except guys who top dudes with implants?
It just depends what you want to use the word "gay" to mean. If you want to indicate a certain variety of sinner, then it's best to use the "screwing anyone with a Y chromosome even once, in any manner, regardless of context" definition. If you want to try to describe a group of people with similar attributes, then calling people attracted to Traps gay isn't really very useful, they don't share attributes with most of the rest of the group.
I think this is the crux of the argument, my definition is activity and attraction based. And for record, since you mentioned sin, having a same sex attractions is not a sin to most people. My definition was quickly written, and I'd throw in consent, and full knowledge as caveats as well.
I think you're using the word to describe people fitting what your definition of gay is. I don't know what attributes you consider in your definition.
I'll expand, can you talk gay? Or dress gay? Sure that sort of description only has meaning because societal connotations and associations with people following the definition as gay. You can talk/dress gay without being gay. You can be gay without talking/dressing gay. Try changing the word and its doesn't make sense to use the attributes as gate-keeping mechanisms. Example: Can you talk/dress American without being American? Can you be American without talking/dressing American?
To be clear, I'm not really attached to either definition, I think the word "gay" is inconsistently used and applied, such that using it in conversation or argument to exclusively mean either the act/sin-based or identity/attraction-based definition is likely to run into snags when two people are using the word to mean different things. Without clarifying our definitions all we're going to achieve is shouting our definitions at each other, so I asked you to clarify what definition you are using to get the conversation moving more productively.
Personally, Homosexuality and sexual orientation is something that I'm intellectually struggling to define at this point. I really don't know what I think Homosexuality is. The "Born This Way" argument seems to have been more or less abandoned, repealed without replacement, by the LGBTQWERTY types. Not long ago Posner would cite the "helper in the nest" theory when writing an opinion on gay rights, the Born This Way theory was a keystone to the entire gay rights movement. Now, it is treated as either an assumption or an irrelevancy, but it isn't even part of the catechism anymore. When I ask woke friends of mine, queer themselves, what the current theory of homosexuality is in this month's issue of The Gay Agenda, they shrug and say idk it doesn't really matter anymore.
Alternatively, homosexual behavior is a pure choice that anyone can make. That doesn't feel right to me, as there is no situation in which I would be attracted to a male, I can't imagine a situation where it would occur to me to engage in homosexual activity. I can imagine most things that I don't like being appealing in some context, Islam or Hockey or beans on toast or genocide, but homosexuality I can't imagine. So there clearly must be some genetic difference between me and the men who are gay. But no one seems interested in telling me what anymore.
Idk, it's something I'm pretty lost on at this point if I stop to think about it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link