site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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.

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.

When was the last time you heard a gun owner say "oh yeah, the suppressor tax stamp is perfectly reasonable"?

This is a really bad example to use in support of your thesis. Suppressor tax stamps are a central example of gun control regulation as tribal bullying; there's no rational reason to make safety equipment both more expensive and harder to acquire.

Ah, heck. You're right, and I switched up the valence when I switched the party.

Would the bump stock bans make a better example? I don't know any gun nuts who are cool with that, even when they don't own one or think they make any sense.

More comments