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 -
It's a bit rich of you to complain about me putting words in your mouth and then turn around and do this.
I don't know how I can make my point any clearer; maybe the third (fourth? fifth?) time's the charm. Not every trans person will commit a mass shooting; indeed, the majority won't. But there are lot of radical online trans spaces which are very scary, and in which hateful, violent rhetoric is normal and even encouraged. (You must know this latter point is true, as in all the months we've been discussing this issue you've never even attempted to contest it.) I am very concerned that the mentally disturbed young men who frequent such spaces are taking this rhetoric to heart and being inspired to commit mass shootings; in short, being "radicalised" by participation in these spaces. Most young men who frequent such spaces will not be so inspired, any more than most incels will commit a mass shooting or most Muslims will commit a terror attack. But enough people will that governments and social media companies should recognise that the pathway really exists; should acknowledge that the people spouting violent, hateful rhetoric are not just "venting", but in many cases mean exactly what they say; should take a more proactive hand in banning communities which refuse to change their ways (much as they've done with e.g. subreddits promoting other kinds of violent, hateful content and rhetoric); and should recognise that participation in radical online trans communities may be a potential red flag for violent radicalisation, in the same way that participation in incel or radical Islam spaces would be. And it's utterly hypocritical for Western governments to relentlessly hype up the threat posed by young men being radicalised by the content they find in online incel spaces, while at the same time outright denying that violent trans radicalisation is a thing at all.
There, that's my thesis statement. I've said exactly what I think on this topic many times, an outright majority of them in replies to comments you've posted, and I really don't think I could be any clearer. If you want to insist that I don't mean what I say and I just secretly hate all trans people and am engaging in "dog-whistle politics" or whatever such nonsense, that's your prerogative, but I refuse to play along anymore.
I didn't say that was your argument, those are just examples of why sweeping generalizations are bullshit. They simply are disproven by the large large large majorities that don't engage in the generalization.
I don't need to contest it, in fact I agree with you. I've talked here about stuff like victim complexes and extreme pessimism being a growing issue with the internet. I think a major part of it is algorithms which are explicitly designed to broadcast angry and scary things.
I don't believe trans people are under any meaningful threat, at least not in most western countries. I also don't believe mass shooters of any kind are a meaningful threat to the general public. I consistently say that violence is just not a thing that western first worlders die of, and if you do die of it it is almost always (not literally always but almost always) because you sought it out. People hype up scary anecdotes like some trans prostitute being killed by an ashamed guy or some Ukrainian refugee being killed in a subway by a mentally ill black dude, but those just aren't things that actually happen in real meaningful numbers.
But again refer back to the original question, which one is the chicken and which one is the egg? In my comment I linked above, I talked about how algorithms wouldn't encourage negativity if people didn't bite onto it to begin with. I think social media and online radicalization can be an accelerant, but I do not believe it is the match that starts the fire.
The chicken, the root cause, for many of these violent people is "anti social negativity obsessed violence loving" personalities. The egg, things that happen because of their personality, is participating in violence glorifying forums, seeking out ways to feel superior to others (like embracing neonazi rhetoric), and wanting ways to feel like they can change who they are for the better (some internal shame about their anti social/asocial tendencies) like embracing trans identities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link