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'm curious, what do you think of the term homophobe? I know the comparison between trans and gay people have all sorts of problems but as far as pathologizing critics as inherently irrational it does seem to be the same tactic. I've always kind of found the tactic pretty frustrating despite mostly disagreeing with those called homophobes and mostly agreeing with those called transphobes.
so many word games are played just in the monikers groups go by these days and I always find the tactic infantile. Naming your group what amounts to the "good guys" and the opposing group what amounts to "insane bad guys" really should get you looked at like someone who is deeply unserious about the topic and has no interest in good faith.
I think you're right on the money. Group pathologies are all very similarly expressed but that doesn't mean the reality on the ground is necessarily similar. But that's also a convenient excuse for whenever ones own group is in contention.
You could easily make the sort of argumentation against gays that get made against trans people. Be it cost to society, pedophilia or broader 'they are gross' derived arguments. But I think the key differentiating factor is that anti-gay stuff never had a consistent group to form around that wasn't already otherized by the mainstream. It was always vague argumentation based on theoretical 'conservative' principles, like the 'sanctity of marriage' stuff. Which are very much unlike the current circling of the wagons arguments we see against trans people that revolve around 'protecting' the girls and women.
There's also a pretty obvious difference between appealing to a vague premonition you have about the future, which is based on caring about the conservative ingroup, and simply pointing to a crying little girl. Most people don't really care about the future of conservatism. Even most conservatives don't when their vague ingroup, that they are only allowed to express through theories and principles, gets pitted against the wants of women. I think it demonstrates just how utterly pathetic conservatism as a group is. I believe it genuinely could not stand against trans people on its own. Which is why they are now hitching a ride with women that have an actual ingroup.
I don't think the 'conservative' arguments were necessarily wrong. It seems rather ridiculous that society should just contort itself to accommodate the bad cultural habitat of the modern gay man that seems to focus a lot on risky sex, alcohol and drugs. And then, under the false pretense that gays are 'just like us', bend your institutions and rituals to accommodate them. But you can't make those arguments properly if you don't otherize gays and fortify your own 'conservative' ingroup. And since the mainstream banned the otherization of gays and branded any instance of it 'homophobic' whilst simultaneously ridiculing the 'conservative' ingroup, the battle was lost before it began. You need something more than just ideas and principles.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link