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 literally just told you what it means, and you just blew right past it. Your biological purpose is identified with your sexual organs.
I blew past it because I actually can't make sense of your statement, and I can't make any more sense of it with your current restatement. Look, as I stated in my response to @Corvos one over, at first I thought I was going to do a little dance to exaggerate the degree to which I have no clue what you are trying to say because you were being deliberately obscurantist, but now I am confused to a point that no exaggeration is needed (and/or think that you are). What do you mean by the phrasing "identified with"? Should I read it as analogous to "dictated by [the canonical use of]"? That neither answers the question of why you single out the sexual organs as opposed to e.g. the liver as a giver of purpose, nor does it resolve the more fundamental question of how you make the leap from "something about you was optimised by the evolutionary process for X" to some variant of "it is imperative for you do X" that you are refusing to specify. Is one of the interpretations that I suggested in my response to Corvos in line with what you meant?
I’ve got to say at this point it just feels to me like you’re trolling. It seems like I’m arguing with a leftist over gender who’s suddenly forgot that words have basic meanings, and now they can’t tell who they are. People like @Corvos seem to get what I’m saying perfectly fine, I don’t know what your difficulty is and I don’t think I can help with it.
Be well.
From what I see, you are the one who is refusing to commit to a basic meaning for the words you are using, even when offered a number of perfectly reasonable options (you could have pointed at some specific thing Corvos said, too, if you were so reluctant to put it in your own words). Would it be appropriate if I said in response that it seems like I'm arguing with a rightist of the oldschool antiintellectual type, who thinks that speaking analytically is some gay nerd shit?
I can assure you I was not trying to argue in bad faith here - I even tried, especially in the subthread with Corvos, to proactively suggest some interpretations, which you only would have to say yes or no to. I understand that you are waving at something that feels very obvious to you, and perhaps it is also obvious to Corvos and other people who share your outlook, but it isn't to me. People are not all the same! I don't look at my genitals, or anyone else's, and get any sort of feeling that I would describe as "purpose". I can abstractly imagine a number of ways in which someone could get a feeling like that, but depending on which one it is, the interpretation of your statement changes, and maybe I am off the mark with each and every of my guesses. If you want to make an argument based on that feeling, it is on you to explain it.
(The parallel with leftist gender arguments is really not there, because in those arguments rightists generally have no problem offering up serviceable definitions of gender. If the rightists had nothing better to say than "I know a woman when I see one", their case would be rather weak.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link