site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jesse Singal gets gaslit

Also, a more neutral take: https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/about-that-twitter-shitstorm-affirmationnot

Brief recap:

  1. NYT shifts its coverage of medical concerns for trans issues from 100% supporting transition in all cases to a more questioning stance, particularly with minors

  2. An open letter is sent to NYT laying out "serious concerns with editorial bias" in response to this shift

  3. Jonathan Chait posts a critical response to the open letter at New York Magazine (no relation to NYT)

  4. Chait gets dragged on twitter for being anti-trans, with a highlighted passage

  5. Jesse Singal posts in support of Chait, showing the highlighted passage is directly in accordance with WPATH guidelines and explains what it means

  6. E. Kale Edmiston, a trans man, posts in response that he, Edmiston, wrote the WPATH guidelines posted by Singal, and that Singal is misinterpreting them

  7. Liberal media pundits and reporters pile on, when Singal defends the straightforward interpretation, demanding that Signal accept Edmiston's (frankly bizarre) interpretation of the quoted passage

  8. Singal has done his homework and contacts several other WPATH authors, who all confirm Singal's interpretation of the passage and reject Edmiston's

  9. Eventually this reaches Scott Leibowitz, overall head of the WPATH guidelines document, who says that Edmiston definitely did not write the highlighted passage, and later severely admonishes this lying and false attribution from within academia

  10. Singal performs several victory laps on Twitter, demanding from the media pundits and reporters the apologies and corrections they had demanded from him

Good guys: Jesse Singal, Jonathan Chait, Scott Leibowitz

Bad guys: E. Kale Edmiston, Madeline Leung Coleman (NYMag editor), Michael Hobbes, Jeet Heer, Marisa Kasabas (MSNBC Columnist), David Perry, Eric Vilas-Boas (Vulture staffer), Miles Klee, Siva Vaidhyanathan

The most interesting, dire, and relevant info is from Eliza Mondegreen, linked near the top. Apparently there is a wink/nod system with the WPATH Standards of Care document, where the words are written a certain way because they must be, but they are interpreted much differently.

She concludes:

Theory and practice—the Standards of Care and what actually happens in the exam room—have nothing to do with one another. Everything in the Standards of Care that sounds cautious and responsible comes with an understanding that’s supposed to go unspoken: We don’t really mean it. We just need to say this. If a patient shows up with serious comorbidities, of course we have to say that they must undergo a “comprehensive” “assessment” and that the clinician must remain open to the possibility that the patient might not really have gender dysphoria and maybe shouldn’t really transition. But you know how important the work we all do is.

In other words, the Standards of Care are a lie that everyone involved in gender medicine pretends to believe. When reporters like Singal and Chait try to hold gender clinicians to WPATH standards (something I think is worth doing, by the way!), savvy clinicians will respond: Yes, of course we “assess” patients very carefully, what do you think this is, the Wild West?

Among other, more obvious mistakes, Edmiston’s most grievous error was not pretending to believe the lie.

EDITS: Signal, Single, Liebowitz. added Cast of Characters, Eliza Mondegreen quote

So...guilty until proven innocent? This has never happened before.

Low-stakes crisis like this is the outcome of having a huge creative and intellectual-elite class, abundance, and economic prosperity and geopolitical stability. Twitter is the prefect medium for this. It will get much worse. Who's funding all of this. It's being funded by an endless supply of substack $, subscriber $. It's coming from somewhere. Like with Google we know they make money from advertisers buying ads, but who is is funding all this culture war?

I suspect that for the causes the right favors it's more grassroots (apparently a good chunk of the funding for the last North American right-wing protest came from the US even though it didn't occur there- admitting that doesn't help anyone involved, of course) and for the causes the left favors it's a lot more organized.

[Assume left and right are just sides of the aisle for the following].

The right-wing party doesn't listen to its voters as much as the left-wing party does partially because the people the State wants to target disproportionately exist on the right (and right-wing parties aren't immune to this when they form government), so they can't be as centralized for legibility reasons WRT the State. Substack's model of "Stripe doesn't serve Substack directly" helps them significantly in this regard- Patreon isn't as useful for the more interesting parts but not all parts need to be interesting.

For the causes the left favors? The grassroots movement for them haven't been nearly as strong- mainly because they have less middle (a double helping of "they're the State so they're necessarily against it" and "their civil religion currently happens to align with its elimination"), so it's organized backing by the strongest foreign corporation that owns the American means of production along with domestic corporations through both official State and deep State (in the "adopt the [anti-middle-class/right] religion, or we stop inviting you to the WEF dinner parties and start working against you" sense) pressure.

Twitter is the prefect medium for this. It will get much worse.

And now you know why left-wingers are apoplectic about the fact they no longer directly control Twitter; I think they believe (correctly?) that they've lost Twitter as command and control for their human botnet like they made heavy use of in 2020 WRT coordinating riots and general disease hysteria unless they manage to neutralize him and state power is all they have to do that (left-wing people aren't Starlink or Tesla customers). Remember, the only people who stopped using Twitter when he bought it were the religious, and religion alone is clearly not enough (which the relative failure of Gab and Truth Social should have made clear before the Left tried and failed with Mastodon).

And now you know why left-wingers are apoplectic about the fact they no longer directly control Twitter; I think they believe (correctly?) that they've lost Twitter as command and control for their human botnet like they did in 2020 WRT coordinating riots and general disease hysteria unless they manage to neutralize him and state power is all they have

This is why I'm still slumped that elites let Elon buy twitter. Top billionaire elites could have easily pooled their money together to buy it. Disney alone is worth $190 billion but just $40 billion for a major organ of propaganda is almost a good deal. Maybe they are hoping he runs it to the ground and then buy it back cheap, but why take that risk?

I think you give elites too much credit.

Or perhaps too much class interest. If you wouldn’t expect a small town of proles to coordinate for something, you shouldn’t expect a few billionaires to agree on it.

Look at how tenuous the chain of events has to be—all the risk of buying a business, and less obvious, legible upside. Adding more conspirators just makes the C/B worse as more potential competing interests get skin in the game.

I think it pours some water on some of these 'grand theories' that suggest collusion between powerful entities

Top billionaire elites could have easily pooled their money together to buy it.

No. Only Musk could do it.

Most billionaires aren't actually that rich. They wouldn't be able to come up with enough money.

And of the ones that are, most of them aren't American (and the US would absolutely not let a foreign buyer get their hands on the Voice of America Twitter- Musk is US citizen enough for the government to offload its space program onto his company).

And of the ones that are, most of them work for technology companies that directly compete with Twitter (anti-trust law in the US is a dead letter these days, but if anything could get them to wake up it would be that- Musk isn't that kind of tech billionaire).

The thing that bothers me is that Musk is the only citizen in the US to whom its Constitution meaningfully applies, and has it in ways people meme about. There is a reason it was supposed to be for all citizens and this is it.

He purchased the First Amendment (he owns Twitter).

He purchased the Second Amendment (he owns a private fleet of ICBMs).

He purchased the Fourth Amendment (he owns a functionally-unjammable communications network).

If the country melts down sufficiently to allow a Caesar there's a very good argument to be made that these powers are sufficient to give him a crown.

If that happens, the furries (that also happen to be a good chunk of his staff, though not necessarily intentionally) will have been responsible for putting the Musk dynasty in charge of the entire world and the flag of the future will be a pawprint softly caressing a human face forever.

he owns a private fleet of ICBMs

Last I heard, it's a lot harder to get a working warhead on a rocket these days than it is to get the rocket.

Anything is a "warhead" at sufficient velocity.

Surely there's some non-nuclear explosives that are "good enough" to stick on a rocket...

Any larger corporation could have done a much richer stock for stock swap, it didn't have to be cash only.

Wait, furries? I'd ask where do they come in, but it sounds like the setup to a really gross punchline.

I'd ask where do they come in

The guy employs a lot of smart technical people.

That group just happens to disproportionately be furries.

That's it. History tends to have a sense of humor, so clearly this is the way it's going to go. Musky husky uwu