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 -
Okay, so rewinding all the way to the start when I made the original post. OP said:
And I pattern matched this to a general theme where people attack [progressive cause] by saying it is inherently "confusing" or "logically inconsistent": not just in practice, but that the entire idea of colourblindness, DEI, gay/trans rights, etc somehow doesn't make "logical" sense.
I don't have a coherent view on the moral side of gender ideology, and I didn't want to try and sort through my feelings on the issue (then or now) and commit to a stance on that question under my pseudonym.
So I deliberately avoided taking any such stance, and just stated this theoretical framework that explains the various demands of the movement as part of a unifying theory, without saying if it is good or bad.
Very roughly, my "story" is that:
Also I realise I was ambiguous when I said I adopted the theory. I meant I adopted the language definition parts of the theory on the Motte, I don't advocate (again, it's a gray area) for trying to make society adopt the theory.
This is a low stakes personal stylistic choice, on the level of capitalising Black/White (and with no neutral answer) - hence my willingness to just change it when someone gave examples where it makes my writing less clear to others and myself.
I fully agree with this when the position in question is about objective reality. But when it comes to stuff about subjective morality, like, say, whether or not the government should change the definition of "mother" to include a transgender person of the male sex - then it's all a matter of taste and personal experiences.
And for moral questions - yes that probably is the best way to persuade. But this mode of discourse feels sort of "pointless": both sides just take turns sharing really emotive stories, and nothing is really learned except about the person sharing their stories.
You can share with us how you came to your own change of heart - and it might unironically be really emotional to read (e.g. someone killed themselves over a lack of affirmation), but then I'm sure an anti-trans person can share a similarly emotional story (e.g. I remember there was a post on the Wellness thread once about a guy struggling to convince his friend not to transition their son)
And where does this go? Nowhere it seems - there's just a bunch of different perspectives. What is the best ice cream flavour? Favourite color? Best way to cook a steak?
I think I can read my comment on a formulation of gender theory in many years time and still stand by it, because I just put forward a possible set of rules, without saying that they are good/bad for [reasons].
More options
Context Copy link