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 -
Perhaps a more realistic hypothetical I have seen discussed before: Imagine a pill is invented that “cures” transgenderism, as in eliminates dysphoria and causes your gender identity to painlessly conform to your birth sex. Would leftists support this? It seems undeniably good, even if you support gender affirming care as it is the perfect treatment. But I have a hard time imagining leftists actually supporting this, which I think reveals that transgenderism is actually a preferred state tk cisgenderism
What do you mean by "support this?" I would think it would be a good thing for such a pill to be available. I'd support anyone who wanted to take it (which I think would be quite a lot of people). I would oppose it being forced on people and support people who wanted to undergo a more traditional gender transition as an alternative.
For me, "support this" would involve something akin to being either ambivalent to or promoting of a medical/social standard where when someone believes they have gender dysphoria and wants to explore options to progress from there, this pill is presented by doctors/psychologists as an equally helpful option to address their dysphoria as medical/social transitioning, modulo the relative risk/benefit ratios of the different processes. This is a pretty muddy and imprecise standard, but that's hard to avoid when talking about something as broad as "leftists" "supporting" "this."
I'm a leftist who would support this by the above standard, but I have to honestly say that I'm skeptical that agreeing with me would be popular or even common among leftists.
This is interesting. My position is pretty close to what you describe but my perception about what leftists in general would support is reversed. Between this and the downthread conversation with @SSCReader I wonder if I'm the one who interacts with unrepresentative leftists.
At the end of the day, we can't really tell who's got a more perception, I guess. My thinking is that much of the philosophical basis I hear from the left around trans issues seems to implicitly posit a sort of dualism, that there's some immaterial soul that has a gender that is decoupled from the sex of the body. As such, I would predict that for most of the left, a pill that makes someone identify their gender with their birth sex would be akin to a pill that tears off a part of the person's soul. It's the same reason why I would guess that even if gay conversion therapy were proven to be effective and with low risk/benefit ratio for a medical/psychological intervention (neither of which seem plausible to me), I doubt there would be much support at all for it from the left.
My perception could easily be colored too much by the leftists I interact with, though. And it's entirely possible that the implicit dualism I see being invoked is just a tool being used to push forward policies intended to reduce the suffering of people with gender dysphoria, and in the scifi scenario that a pill is invented to painlessly do just that, the dualism basis would get dropped entirely. Most leftists aren't activists, and most people aren't principled left or right, so it could take just a few activists supporting it and the regular everyday people going along with it to make it popular among the left.
This is true regardless of the immaterial soul thing, no? Let's say your most defining character trait is that you're very logical and detail-oriented, and your family encourages you to take a pill that makes you more artsy and creative instead. Regardless of which is actually better, the pill itself replaces part of your personality with something new, so it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to view that as partial murder.
My position on trans is essentially that gender identity is not very important (gender is, but how you feel about your gender is a category error), so it would be something more like a pill that makes you slightly prefer the color blue over the color red, except it also improves your health, financial, and social outcomes drastically. I'd take such a pill without question. If I considered gender identity to be a core part of someone then such a pill would seem somewhat evil to me.
No. For instance, in your example, being logical, detail oriented, artsy, or creative (the latter 2 and former 2 don't seem to be at all in conflict with each other, for the record, making the analogy rather off) aren't things that exist independently of the body. These personality traits come about as a consequence of the biology of the brain which is affected pretty directly by the biology of the rest of the body, such as hormones. The reason I might be any of these things isn't because there's something fundamentally "me" about being logical and detail oriented or whatever, it's because my physical body caused that to arise in my sets of behavior and my consciousness.
A pill that changes my personality in that way would be a pill that changes my personality in that way. It would be changing my biology the way pills tend to do, and I do consider it quite a stretch to say that that's partial murder.
I don't see why it being a consequence of biology is relevant. My point is that people really do consider their personalities to be their souls, so changing your personality is ripping out a piece of your soul. I think this is basically the correct way to look at it too. Let's assume for a second that people do have souls. Which would you prefer: to have your personality changed drastically, but your soul remain the same, or to have your personality remain the same, but your soul damaged somehow?
My view of the "soul" is that the latter hypothetical is impossible, precisely because the very most important thing about one's soul is their personality.
I didn't claim that the cause of your detail-oriented personality is your soul. The cause doesn't matter. What matters is how much you value that personality now that you have it. Changing it via a pill on a whim seems like a very drastic decision akin to replacing yourself with a similar person. Like I said, I'd feel comfortable doing so if that other person is very similar to me in the ways that matter to me, but if they're drastically different then that starts looking more like "tearing off a part of my soul."
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
More options
Context Copy link