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've seen other commenters on Reddit say similar, that they think any concession is giving the right an opening they can exploit to take things further. I think that the right does have animus, for instance I think Kansas immediately voiding trans government IDs was malicious. But I think they are making a mistake by thinking that if they don't pick every fight then they are losing.
For my part, a large contributing factor to why I refuse to use preferred pronouns is that the trans movement seems to always take the maximalist position and expect everyone else to do the same. They use the argument "sex and gender are two different things" to create support for the idea that someone can be different than what they were born as, but in practice gender is the only criteria. One could easily make the argument that trans women are women but sports are segregated based on sex, but in practice a trans advocate will never take that route and always fight for the position that allows trans women to compete as women. "Let the sports committee's decide" is the moderate-sounding solution because they will lobby said committee and get mad if the committee rules against them.
So while they don't want to give ammo to the right by offering any concession, I don't want to give them any support because I can't support them on A without them requiring or assuming support of B-Z.
There is? Reddit loves bringing up the "goomba fallacy" where person A accuses group B of being hypocrites by making mutually exclusive statements, when in fact B1 and B2 are said by different individuals. But I've found that person A can still have a point. I deliberately try to look at the views of a wide variety of people. I cannot recall a single time I've witnessed the "trans is a medical condition" and "trans is a lifestyle choice" camps ever actually debate each other. If person B1 and B2 simply act like they are in the same camp and support each other towards mutual ends while simply never acknowledging their contradictory stances, they get to inflate their numbers by counting their opposites as allies.
More options
Context Copy link