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 -
Uh, one of these things is not like the others?
Yes, we have not implanted microchips in children's brains en masse preventing them from taking their own lives until they've reached the age of majority. Very astute observation. In the West, just about any sufficiently determined ten-year-old can kill himself. By extension, any sufficiently determined ten-year-old could probably emasculate himself if he put his mind to it.
Anti-trans posters are not complaining that we don't live in a maximally totalitarian dystopia in which no harm of any kind will ever befall minors. (If anything, I'd say the median anti-trans poster would be more in favour of minors incurring the occasional skinned knee or broken arm rather than sitting in their bedrooms staring at their phones. I'd hazard a guess that there's a significant amount of overlap between the most trans-affirming parents and this modern breed of safetyist helicopter parent. I could even map out a plausible causal pathway wherein safetyist helicopter parenting results in one's child identifying as trans.)
We are complaining about: medical organisations violating the principle of primum non nocere and being derelict in their duty of care to their patients; these organisations carrying out elective procedures on patients too young to understand the implications thereof; claiming (on the basis of extremely flimsy and far from dispositive evidence) these procedures are necessary to prevent the patients in question from taking their own lives; ignoring any evidence to the contrary; browbeating and gaslighting the patients' enormously distressed parents with emotionally manipulative slogans like "would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son?"; and flat-out lying to the public about how many such procedures have been conducted, and for what reason.
The fact that (short of having him sectioned) any sufficiently determined ten-year-old cannot be physically prevented from killing himself is not, in any way, a rebuttal to any of the above complaints. In fact, it strikes me as a complete non sequitur. It doesn't even rise to the level of whataboutism.
More options
Context Copy link