site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34500 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.

It’s funny for a supposedly anti woke Marxist to not condemn the trans movement because it’s the ultimate example of what’s really an ultimate individualist and American philosophy.

However I see Freddie do this every so often, the last was a few months ago

The thing is, Freddie is a real live Marxist, which is part of the (far) left in American politics, but he otherwise has traditional leftist views of the remnants of the old socialist working-class type. So he doesn't realise that the Overton window has shifted past him, and he's being left behind on the wrong shore.

He's protesting for economic leftism, but the progressive leftism of right now (whatever about Occupy, which I thought at the time and continue to think was a steaming mess of clashing ideologies and even worse, no ideology, just 'let's protest and something something magic underpants gnomes profit! will happen') isn't interested in economics as such. Social liberalisation is way easier and cheaper to achieve, as all the formerly centrist-right governments (such as in my own country) discovered when they woke up to embrace the rainbow flag and legalise same-sex marriage. Instant popularity, doesn't cost a red cent to implement, the old problems of lack of housing and all the rest of it still remain but look - we've got Pride flags now!

So being a good old-fashioned leftist and liberal, he is exactly what he says - "conventionally progressive". So he thinks yeah, let trans people use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable in, yeah trans people aren't trying to trick anyone, they know they're not really changing sex, yeah let's just be tolerant and open and supportive.

And that's not enough any more. I don't think he gets the crazier extremes, so he just goes along with "well I'm not trans but if this is what trans people say, that's good enough for me". Hence the bits about biology - there is more to it that I didn't quote, and he does take the old line that sure, having XY chromosomes and a dick does indicate masculine biology which is how we identify men and the likes, but he just goes along with the line that the trans movement tells him they're taking.

So he's safe so far, but if he ever says the wrong thing (and it's very easy to do that right now), he'll be condemned just as harshly as if he had been one of the transphobes all along.

just 'let's protest and something something magic underpants gnomes profit! will happen'

Ah! Populism. Truly the illness of the age. In some sense 1/6 and its doubly farcical Brazilian reenactment was exactly this same sentiment. People have been raised on stories of heroic figures who just needed to stand up to the evil dictatorship to have everything magically fall into place and a new dawn shine on the liberated victors of oppression.

Turns out politics don't work that way and protesting is worse than useless if you don't have any power. Maybe people will eventually take the hint but this is such a powerful and deeply ingrained delusion that I'm not holding my breath.

In some sense even the most hardcore cynics you'll find on the far left and far right still cling to it deeply within their soul even as they openly denounce it. I don't know that I've lost this magical intuition to "trust the plan" myself. Deep down I'm probably still hoping a secret cabal of 90s liberals can just fix everything and finally restore the glory of the Roman Republic.

But it’s all crazy extremes, isnt it? If it was just “make getting a grc easier” the that would have been ok, but self identification is a clear extreme disaster.

And I don’t get how supposed rationalists don’t get that.

Because the motte of "XYZ is obviously bad" defends, as always, a more oppressive bailey: "so let's ban U, V and W just to be safe." The people who most loudly criticize self-ID are usually LGBT-unfriendly on various other issues. Maybe they thought DOMA was pretty great, or are on camera deadnaming someone, or sent their kids to conversion therapy. It could be for deep-seated beliefs, or it could be political strategy. Doesn't really matter. Why should trans supporters trust them to come to the acceptable compromise on GRCs?

It's more or less the same slippery-slope argument that gets deployed in reverse. Maybe a lesbian woman is capable of teaching kids, but what if she makes it sexual? Give an inch and those activists take a mile. They used to be aligned with pedophiles, too...next thing you know, they'll be defending MAPs in schools...better to cut this off from the start.

This is a negotiation tactic, and it's not unique to any one cause.

The people who most loudly criticize self-ID are usually LGBT-unfriendly on various other issues.

The people who most loudly criticize it are LGBT-unfriendly on other issues because an LGBT-friendly person has a lot more to lose by being accused of bigotry than a LGBT-unfriendly person, who's probably lost all that he could already and whose remaining friends and family won't care about the accusation. This situation is of trans supporters' own making.

Maybe a lesbian woman is capable of teaching kids, but what if she makes it sexual?

It doesn't work in reverse unless the lesbian's environment is controlled by rightists who can easily make such accusations stick against even innocent lesbians.

I really don't think so. Fear of cancellation is not the deciding factor in the LGBT+ coalition. Either way, opposing self-ID is a pretty good predictor of opposing other LGBT policies. That means supporters are likely to cry "slippery slope!"

And yeah, that's exactly the environment I had in mind. Some employers clearly would fire people based on sexuality. I realize that Title VII preempts such an option, but it still shows up as a rhetorical strategy.

Either way, opposing self-ID is a pretty good predictor of opposing other LGBT policies.

Really? Which other LGBT policies am I opposing then? Bonus points if you focus on the L, G, and B.

I dunno. How'd you feel about Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill? Was Bostock decided correctly? What about the whole cake-baking debacle?

More comments

Or if you think opponents are using it as a wedge, in which case breaking ranks is going to slide the Overton window.

When was the last time you heard a gun owner say "oh yeah, the suppressor tax stamp bump stock ban is perfectly reasonable"? I'm sure people do actually believe this. But they're not speaking up about it because it is seen as a referendum on federal authority. There's no incentive to give up ground until pressed.

So yes, the LGBT coalition makes it hard to oppose the wedge. Welcome to tribalism.

More comments

Fear of cancellation is not the deciding factor in the LGBT+ coalition.

It's not just that, but also fear of social stigma, as well as tribal loyalty.

When opposing X gets you declared a bigot, it's a lot easier to do it if you're considered a bigot anyway due to your opposition to Y and Z.

Fear of cancellation is not the deciding factor in the LGBT+ coalition.

It may be the deciding factor as to whether someone who is the coalition chooses to oppose part of it.

I’m not sure that makes sense. The opposition to self identification is much higher than hostility to, say gay marriage. And trending in opposite directions. Outside of the US the primary opposition is feminists, which is clear from the acronym TERF.

And in the US the Christian right was anti gay anyway.

True, but I think that's normal for any policy issue with a spectrum of responses. The fringe pushes something extreme and the base either closes ranks or shuffles around uncomfortably. People who get too uncomfortable peel off to the other camps. Repeat until the fringe moderates or the opposition wins.

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