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 -
I know you think you're being really clever by bringing up the Sequences, and that the answer to the question "is Bob a woman?" depends on the reason you're asking the question and what information you're looking to get out of your interlocutor.
But like, I've read the Sequences, I understand the argument Eliezer was making, and I still find gender ideology incoherent. Regardless of the question being asked, I cannot imagine a situation in which "Bob is a woman" would provide more information than "Bob is a male person".
And for someone so eager to tout the virtues of the Sequences as a tool for navigating the universe, it strikes me that there were two Sequences you conspicuously failed to internalise: "Categorizing has Consequences" and "Making Your Beliefs Pay Rent (in Anticipated Experiences)". We expect women to behave one way, and men another. A particular group of men (alternative phrasing: a particular group who would have historically been categorised as men) demand to be included in the category "women" instead. We observed that, along on a range of important axes, this subset of women behaves identically to the modal man. Does that not rather strongly suggest that this new category has been artificially gerrymandered, and does not in fact cleave reality at the joints? If you believe that all men who demand to be called women are women, but nevertheless expect them to behave exactly as men would, can you really claim that your belief (that these men are really women) is paying rent in anticipated experiences (therefore, these men will behave much the same as you would expect the modal woman to behave)?
More options
Context Copy link