site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34498 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More songs about buildings and food discussion of trans matters, this time courtesy of Freddie deBoer. First of, let me say I appreciate Freddie's writing. I think he often has sensible things to say, particularly in his own field of education, and offers necessary criticism as a leftist who is on the left.

That being said, he is just as prone to the shibboleths of his side as we on the right are to the shibboleths of our side. Having seen how the progressive agenda around education is a steaming pile of what makes the roses grow, because he's been there and he's seen how the theory does not correspond with reality, I don't understand how he then falls into line with the rest of the progressive activism around other matters. But then, we all have our blind spots.

He wants to compare transgenderism with transracialism, and how one is real and valid and the other is a fake, but then he comes out with lines like this:

The basic progressive argument about gender is precisely that gender identity isn’t tied to either genetics or physiology.

Well then eff me, Freddie, if it's not genetics and it's not physiology and biology not real, what is gender identity tied to?

Maybe... feelings? I feel like a woman?

Then why isn't it possible to feel like a black woman? To have that same yearning about identity and conviction that what you are "assigned at birth" is not the truth of what you really are?

But the evidence against this is right in front of your face: the very word “trans” announces the distinction. It’s the trans movement! If the point were to insist that there are no physiological or genetic differences between trans and cisgender men or trans and cisgender women, then it would be awfully odd that trans people identify as trans, wouldn’t it?

He does not seem to have seen the arguments in some quarters that the term "trans woman" should not be used, that it should simply be "woman". After all, trans women are women. Maybe he hasn't encountered the nuttier fringes of the "trans movement" as yet.

But on LGBTQ issues, I’ve never really had an unusual angle, just like I’ve always been conventionally progressive on abortion or environmentalism.

Yeah, I absolutely don't disagree there. He sings along to the chorus like a good right-thinking person on the right side of history. But maybe those who don't hold the conventional progressive position aren't all dishonest or activated by unthinking bigotry and prejudice? Something to think about.

Anyway, this is mostly to present a reasonable leftist and what they think the trans movement is all about, and how their experience may or may not line up with what other people have experienced. In the middle of the screeching harpies, it's hard to remember that on both sides of this question are people who are genuinely trying to do their best.

Recently, I was again moved to reiterate that I will not tolerate negative fixation on trans people in my comments. I have in fact felt compelled to declare comments on this issue off-limits in general unless I specifically bring the subject up. The problem stems from a small minority of commenters, and commenters are a small minority of readers. But discussion of trans people in the comments space too often creates an environment that’s unwelcoming and hostile, and I’m not willing to accept that.

It seems like most of his problems stem from the comments. He may as well just disable them for good. The vast majority of readers do not comment (I think it's something like 1% of readers will comment), usually the most loyal or committed. There are still userhandles from 2014 commenting on Marginal Revolution. I sometimes skim the comments on his blog (you must pay to comment), and the vast majority of the comments seem pretty civil and in agreement, so I am not sure what he is seeing that I am not. Compared to reddit, he gets way less shit than most people (I took lots of shit from that article I shard a while back about TED Talks). Given how long he has been online and writing for the public, I figured he would have a thick skin.

The trans issue is not even that controversial. If he really wants to annoy his readers, push for higher marginal tax rates on upper middle class and above, which used to be the mainstay democratic position. That is way more contentious. And it affects him. This is why wokeness and trans issues is the opposite of skin in the game. None of these people are going to be affected by it, hence moving away from economics issues to identity ones.

As one of Freddie's subscribers and occasional commenters, prior to his "talking about trans people in the comments of one of my posts about an unrelated subject = instant ban" policy, it really was common for at least one comment thread on all of his posts to end up centering on trans issues, no matter how unrelated the post's subject matter. It was annoying.

I believe that this community experimented with a ban on the HBD topic for a while for similar reasons, and I don't think it was because the mods were anti-HBD per se, they were just tired of it being the only goddamn thing we talked about. That's my memory, anyway.

About the least charitable take I have on Freddie's banning commenting on about trans issues is that he may realize just how badly the social justice left has shot itself in the foot in the last five years with the trans issue, and is tired of having people using it as a generic gotcha attack on social justice politics in general.

I do get that if any and every post ends up being diverted by people in the comments going "So what about this latest trans outrage?" even if it is totally unconnected to the subject of the post, that is bad, and he's perfectly entitled to ban, shut down, and tell them to shut the hell up for doing that. And there are bad actors out there.

But a blanket "this is the official line and I don't listen to anything else" comes across as being censorship, you know, like the bad right-wingers who can't cope with diversity of opinion or anything that challenges their fixed notions of How Things Ought To Be engage in?

Freddie saying "I am fed-up of people dragging in trans issues where it's not pertinent, knock it off or eat a ban" is perfectly fair and his right as the Substack owner. Freddie saying "I'm not discussing this at all because any criticism is only bad-faith right-wingers who are all prejudiced bigots" isn't great. But then again, if he has a trans family member, sure, this is natural human behaviour.

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