site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32944 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 27, 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.

10
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And somebody have the backbone to stand up to those for whom it is a sexual fetish, identify it as such, and tell them they're not transgender, they're perverts

Perhaps I can prevail upon you to be kind to perverts? I encourage you to read my essay downthread; I believe the thing you are referring to is more common, and more complicated, than you think -- but that aside, surely having disordered desires should be treated as a mental illness, in much the same vein as the other things you describe?

Perhaps I can prevail upon you to be kind to perverts?

If you want to call it a paraphilia, go ahead, I'm not fussed either way. I think it's a small proportion but I also think that unfortunately they are the loudest and most visible and most online.

I also think there is a difference between someone so distressed at their biological sex that they want to cut off the distinguishing characteristics, and the types who complain about the cotton ceiling and how it's transphobia if cis gay women don't want to have sex involving a dick.

I think in the rush to be accepting and supportive, a lot of sketchy stuff got past and now the allies and activists are kind of stuck - they've nailed their colours to the mast, they feel that if they row back on anything then it's giving in to the demands of, well, the likes of me and denying the reality of trans people.

But the more the crazier stuff gets out into the mainstream, the worse the backlash will be, and the genuine trans people who only want quiet lives will suffer. The trenders, the attention seekers, the sexual assault crowd and the lunatics will be okay, the ordinary person who isn't Rachel Levine or Sam Brinton will get the worst of it.

I think it's a small proportion but I also think that unfortunately they are the loudest and most visible and most online.

It seems we differ in our estimates here. Maybe it would help to draw a distinction between, let's say, people with disordered sexual desires (in which group I would include any autogynephilia in natal males), and people who are "visible perverts" (you know about them because they do perverted things in public or are publicly loud about their proclivities). I agree that the latter group is rare and unrepresentative of trans people, and it's crazy that the trans lobby doesn't want to get rid of them (probably this is downstream of "pride" stuff). I think, though, that the former group includes probably the majority of MtF trans individuals as well as a decent percentage of men who don't transition. This is probably not usually acknowledged because it's perceived as unflattering to trans people, and to be fair the people loudly crowing about how "it's just a fetish" are being cruel and are not helping the matter.

I think we ought to have some charity even for the "visible perverts" crowd; they need it even if they don't deserve it -- but what I'm really referring to here is the other group. Right now all they are hearing is either total silence, "Eww, you pervert", or "That means you're really a woman deep down! You must be trans!" I think there is a need for counseling, along the lines of "So, you know how you really really want to be female? And how you find that idea sexually arousing, too? Yeah, that's a thing; it's something a bit wrong with you, but it doesn't mean either that you are disgusting or that you are 'really' a woman or should try to become one. Let's try to help you figure out how to deal with your feelings."

It's difficult to work in the interests of a group who is doing obvious, immediate and lasting damage to everything they touch, who do not actually want the help you advocate offering, and who will make their best effort to harm anyone who tries.

It's a big ask, is what I'm saying.

Are you referring to trans activists, the "visible perverts", or to the "disordered desires" group? Granted there is overlap, of course, but I think it's the first two groups who are doing the damage. A lot of the third group doesn't (or doesn't yet) even consider themselves trans! If you want them to not get eaten by the trans meme, you've got to provide some kind of compassionate support. Because when the options are suffer in solitude, get shamed and ridiculed, or listen to the seductive whispers telling them that they can satisfy their desires and join a group that will continually affirm them, it takes a pretty strong will to not pick the third option.

Perhaps I can prevail upon you to be kind to perverts?

Not if they're going to be officially deputized by the State to (mission-)kill anyone who offends them.

I don't actually think people are generally unwilling to accept people like this- after all, there was no pushback on deputizing them partially for this reason- but I don't trust cops, least of which those that are in uniform, even less if they're Thin Blue Liners. If I had to talk to one of them, I wouldn't even admit to jaywalking lest they take that as an excuse to bust out their inner Eric Cartman. The ride is indistinguishable from the rap these days.

There was a comment upthread about how people are afraid to denounce Islam and functionally treat its adherents as wearing suicide bomb vests because they threaten violence to those who say those things. This is the same thing, except top-down rather than bottom-up.

And yes, it makes things objectively worse for any member of the violence-advantaged class (for example, men adopting the Pence rule makes the life of the honest woman more complicated). But that class, on a population level, does not generally care enough to change this- it is useful when the economic game is zero-sum.

I confess that I am confused by this response. Who is being officially deputized by whom to kill whom? And how does any of this make sense in the context of @FarNearEverywhere's parent comment, which already posits a massive change in how the official parts of society deal with trans stuff?

Trans people are being deputized by the state to wreck the lives of normal people. They've been granted official "victim" status, which gives them a frankly absurd level of protection from normal criticism, which they then routinely abuse in a variety of novel ways. When normal people who haven't kept abreast of our mercurial social reality object, they get hammered, often as not via state or pseudostate enforcement mechanisms.

You're saying that it would be better for people to be kinder to Trans individuals. But only a vanishing minority of the objections to Trans individuals have to do with their Transness, as such. People are objecting to the active "recruitment" of children by agents of the state, the vociferous defense of actual perverts, the extension of charity to sexual criminals, the weaponization of serious state power to enforce fringe ideology, and to the damage done to ordinary people who attempt to exercise their purported civil rights in response. Trans people, as such, wield immense, absurd, and almost entirely unaccountable power under our current system, a highly visible fraction of them are quite gleefully abusing that power in highly visible ways, and the rest are refusing to restrain this fraction, refusing to criticize or hold them accountable, and vociferously attaching anyone else who tries to do so.

You are right that they need help, but they need to be stopped more, because they are cooperating with efforts to do serious damage to our society.

I guess I don't see how this has much to do with what I'm saying. The post I was originally responding to suggested:

And somebody have the backbone to stand up to those for whom it is a sexual fetish, identify it as such, and tell them they're not transgender, they're perverts

as a way to dissuade these people from transitioning. In other words, tell people with autogynephilia that they are disgusting and should go away, which seems both cruel and unlikely to work. I'm proposing compassion instead, because I don't want these people to end up deciding they are trans, I want them to get help.

For whatever it's worth I have little love for the trans lobby and am pretty incensed at all the propagandizing and abuse of state power to enforce their ideology. I just happen to think that many, probably most, trans individuals are also victims here, in much the same way that lonely people who get targeted by lovebombing and join a cult are.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats