site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   37783 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.

The fact is that gender is indeed totally distinct from sex. Sex is either "male" or "female" (and I'm excluding intersex for simplicity of argument) and is immutable from birth. Gender on the other hand refers to a socially created psychological programming that every tribe and society imbues its members on upon.

Can you cite evidence for why this particular framing should be the way we define these words? As I've said before on this forum, the thing that most people refer to these days as gender may more traditionally (as in prior to 2012, for most of society) be referred to as "gender roles", and I think that there would be a lot less controversy (and the statements would carry less weight) if people said that gender roles are socially constructed or distinct from sex, etc.

Also as I've said before, the debate about the definition of the word "gender" is kind of weird. Like Scott once said:

I can’t argue with this. No, literally, I can’t argue with this. There’s no disputing the definitions of words. If you say that “racism” is a rare species of nocturnal bird native to New Guinea which feeds upon morning dew and the dreams of young children, then all I can do is point out that the dictionary and common usage both disagree with you.

I'm keen on pointing out that it always seemed to me comparable to a situation in which one day half of society started using the word "tallness" differently. Some people may tell me that I have to treat them as if they're 6'4". And if I point out that they're actually 5'8", they say, "that's my height. It's completely distinct from my tallness, which everyone knows is just socially constructed roles and is determined entirely by how people self-identify".

It's just a definition. But the problem is that that definition carries implications based on the previous usage of the word. It seems as if gender advocates coopted the word "gender" and applied the definitions of "gender roles" to it, using the weight the term "gender" carries towards specific ends in the form of social activism.

I don’t think in anyway they are referring to gender roles. A stay at home dad is still 100% male even if he’s performing traditionally female roles. And that dude who stole suitcases runs i believe some health department for the Feds isn’t claiming to be a man because he has an executive role but is claiming to be a female because ???? Wants attention from the best I can tell.

Sorry, maybe I muddled the conversation, and shouldn't have mentioned gender roles here. I just brought it up because I often see people say "gender is a social construct. The proof is because what it means to be a women in China is different than here, women in China dress differently, etc". I just mean to say that I reject that sort of argument, because it's talking about gender roles, not gender. Gender roles are different in China. Not gender itself.

Gender roles are different in China.

Is that even true? Do women in China not take more interest in children and babies? Are they more authoritative and aggressive than men? In what way are gender roles different in China beyond superficial elements like clothing? Is a woman in a red dress expressing a different gender role than a woman in a yellow dress?

IDK, it's probably true to some degree, though I'm no expert. Some places have tribes where they track lineage through the women. Many places have variances on how demure women are and how subservient they are to men, and variances on the specific notions of what is a woman/man's obligation to society.

My experience in a country not unlike China (I assume) is that the women here are much more feminine, in all the ways you can suggest other than that they are not particularly demure (or chaste!) The men are not particularly masculine though (not trying to put them down), but I hear they do pretty well.

"Gender roles" are not the same as "gender", otherwise there would not be a reason to tack on the "roles" suffix to it.

AFAIK, "Gender roles" originated because "gender" used to be a polite way of saying "sex".

This should be rather obvious, to a group of discerning rationalists, is it not?

Yes, of course it should be. But only if the goal is to discuss the culture war, rather than to engage in it. Most people who post here appear to be more interested in the latter. Which is why they also tend to conflate descriptive claims, such as the one you make here, with normative claims.

People are attuned to the argument tactic of controlling the definition to win the argument. Funny enough, the responses have been “argument by definition is not good” which isn’t waging the culture war.

I would say that when one side says, "this is what we mean by 'gender'", the refusal of someone on the other side to engage with that, and to instead say, "that is not what gender means; you are arguing by definition" is indeed waging the culture war. Arguing about the culture war would involve a discussion of whether the other side's definition is analytically useful.

Mirror universe or something. The OP stated “this is THE definition.” No argument; just this is fact.

It would be reasonable to just respond “argument by definition.” But many posters did not; they went beyond that. They explained definitions are only really beneficial to the extent they describe something real and based on that they think OP’s definition is faulty.

Yet you are literally switching the roles of the poster here to fit your side.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but as I understand OP, they are merely saying that that is the definition used by those on the "other side." And, in fact, it has been the accepted meaning within the scholarly community that deals with this stuff for decades, so when people come 30 years late to the party and say, "you are using that word wrong," it is not unreasonable to respond by pointing out that those people are ignorant of the established meaning.

More comments

The idea that a small (and at the time very fringe) group of academics (not sure I’d call it scholarly) gets to define a word because the gen public don’t speak up at the time is bullshit.

More comments

The 2871 schtick is a fancy way of saying "I'm not taking a side, I'm talking about objective truths that any disinterested party would recognize:.

In other words, no, "one side" does not say that. Or at least that's what he claims.

There probably are, but I don't know of one specifically. These are actually difficult questions, but a lot of people on both sides seem to think that they are easy questions, because their political views demand that.

This should be rather obvious, to a group of discerning rationalists, is it not?

No, because you haven't provided any evidence. You've just stated your assertion again and then you said it was obvious.

You haven't provided any evidence for this statement:

Both "gender" and "gender roles" are socially constructed and intuitively felt. They are not biologically inherited, like sex or sexual orientation is.

I see no reason why that should be the case. In my hypothetical example above, should the onus be on me to prove that tallness is not biologically inherited from height? As I already established, this is just an argument over definitions.

I would contest that gender roles are socially constructed. Sure, society has an influence but so does biology. There are feedback loops at work.

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