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 -
The first two episodes of The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling dropped, and I've got to say, I'm a bit disappointed. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but Megan Phelps-Roper seems to be saving the "juicy" stuff about J.K. Rowling's statements about gender and sex for later episodes. Instead, the first episode is basically the biography of J.K. Rowling that I'm sure everyone has heard a thousand times by now - though with a special emphasis on her status as an abuse survivor, and the second episode focuses on the Evangelical Christian backlash against Harry Potter as it was being released.
This does make the podcast more comprehensive, and allows Phelps-Roper, who is an ex-member of the Westboro Baptist Church, to leverage her knowledge of Conservative Christianity to fill out her subject, but aside from the implicit message that she seems to be developing that Evangelical Christian censorship and Woke Progressive censorship are two sides of the same coin (hardly a novel take), I didn't really feel like I needed a retread of the Evangelical Christian backlash to Harry Potter, which I lived through and was very conscious of thanks to my coming up in New Atheism over the relevant time period. (And it goes without saying that the Rowling biography was a waste of time as someone who went to several midnight releases for the Potter books and movies over the years.)
Notably, trans video essayist Natalie Wynn (better known by her Youtube handle ContraPoints) tweeted recently that she has been interviewed for the project, and felt that Phelps-Roper had misrepresented the nature of the podcast before the interview. Wynn believes that Phelps-Roper's status as an ex-bigot makes it easier for her to empathize with bigots, and forces her to believe deeply in their ability to reform, but the result is that her worldview is overly simplistic - leading her to believe that trans activists are just as bad as the transphobes they argue with.
It's hard to say if Wynn's criticisms are 100% correct yet. I will be very interested to see how Phelps-Roper frames that interview (if it ends up being included at all.) The best hint of the eventual direction of the podcast so far, seems to be a statement in the second episode about censorship efforts surrounding Huckleberry Finn, where it was first criticized by racist bigots for showing the races mixing, and later criticized for anti-racist progressives for depicting black people in a negative light.
The thing is, there isn't any "juicy stuff". If you believe the online foofaraw, then Rowling has been calling for forced conversion camps and public executions of trans people. That isn't so.
Given that one little flower had to back down with a grovelling apology on Twitter (because it's clear he did go to a lawyer who went "You said what online? Dude, beg on your knees before this can go to court because she'll destroy you"), then yeah - some trans activists and allies are as bad as the transphobes.
As I understand it, he apologized not because he went to a lawyer, but because Rowling went to her lawyers who served him a notice. It is my understanding that it is extremely easy to prove libel/defamation under UK law, so he made the (wise) decision to apologize and retract in response to that.
If he were really as sure that his words would only be taken as hyperbole as he claimed, then Rowling sending him a solicitor's letter would do nothing to change his brave, bold, stance. I think he did take legal advice and was told "You dug this hole for yourself" and so he has had to apologise because if it went to trial he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
In what other circumstances would "When I heavily implied I'd burn you at the stake, that was only meant as exaggeration" be accepted, when it came to making threats? If someone said the same about this self-identified drag queen, what would be the reaction?
why would this be the case. i'm not familiar with this person, but just by going on twitter followers, this guy has like 9000 while JKR has well... millions and is verified. now this isn't proof that the guy has more power but... i extremely doubt that JK Rowling has less or even similar power to this guy.
i can see very well how a large legal team may seem threatening even if you really do believe you're in the right. and honestly i find it less likely that someone randomly went to their legal team about this content and then decided to retract it then and there instead of this being a reaction.
if he had the foresight to go to his lawyers before hand... he probably wouldn't have made the comment in the first place.
that's a lot of the problem with the lack of free speech. if a lawyer or few can send a few threatening messages, it can spook someone who has fewer resources than they do. we see attempts at it too in america (even if the it is difficult to prove libel or slander in american courts). power imbalances can be frightening and it is easy to be intimidated by such a tactic even if you truly believe in your own statement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link