site banner
Goodguy  4d ago (text post)   Edited 4d ago   10180 thread views

Midterms Megathread

Cause otherwise midterms discussion will be scattered around a bunch of separate Culture War thread posts. And it's nice to have more off-the-cuff rapid reactions in a dedicated megathread.

The first thing I've noticed so far: if the exit polls are correct, Americans are very pessimistic about AI.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sorry, I actually have to make a correction, and say it appears the proposed UK law is not that bad. I can probably find ones that are from other countries that are. Anyway, it seems you don't care either way:

EDIT: Actually I take that back, the UK bill claims to limit itself to abusive behavior, but defines it as, among other things:

(c) controlling or coercive words or behaviour;
(d) use of economic pressure;
(e) use of psychological or emotional pressure.

So it does seem pretty bad.

I'm sorry, but to me this seems like a non sequitur. I'm not talking about the left end of the spectrum. I'm asking, on the centre-to-right side of the spectrum, what position is there between that held by Rowling and advocating imprisonment or execution for being trans (which you will surely agree is the very far-right end of the spectrum)?

By analogy, bans on gender affirming care would be a good example. You can also split them by who they apply to, like bans on GAC for children (I think that's the majority of the passed laws) are more moderate than blanket bans.

Or even with the pronouns example we started from: creating social pressure for everyone to use pronouns based off biological sex, rather than just letting people use whatever they want (some TERFs actually do this) is less moderate than JK Rowling's position.

I really don't understand this selective lack of imagination on your part.

By analogy, bans on gender affirming care would be a good example. You can also split them by who they apply to, like bans on GAC for children (I think that's the majority of the passed laws) are more moderate than blanket bans.

How would such a ban be enforced if not by criminal sanctions, i.e., imprisonment or execution? Okay, I suppose you could fine people, but I can't imagine that being a very effective deterrent, and an anti-trans government would certainly want something more forceful. To compare our hypothetical to a real-life instance of medical procedures being criminalized, performing an abortion can get you life imprisonment in Texas. Evidently they thought fines were insufficient. You could perhaps nitpick over whether the trans person would be prosecuted or only the person performing the procedure.

Or even with the pronouns example we started from: creating social pressure for everyone to use pronouns based off biological sex, rather than just letting people use whatever they want (some TERFs actually do this) is less moderate than JK Rowling's position.

I will concede that there is a difference between refusing to personally use trans people's preferred pronouns and creating social pressure for others to refuse. Furthermore, mere social pressure is not necessarily equivalent to a legal ban (which again would run into the question of enforcement), so that would be another step to the right, though some more traditional societies can be very forceful about extralegal enforcement of social norms.

But do we know if Rowling is actually indifferent regarding other people's pronoun usage? A person as prominent as her publicly and vocally refusing to use preferred pronouns is bound to have an effect on the discourse. I suspect she would be happy if her advocacy resulted in more people refusing to use trans people's preferred pronouns. Is that not a kind of "social pressure"?

How would such a ban be enforced if not by criminal sanctions, i.e., imprisonment or execution?

I mean, you answered your own question. Fines, taking away a medical license, exposure to malpractice lawsuits.Yes in some states prison sentences are on the table as well, this is hardly an extreme either, we do that all the time with things like female circumcision, euthanasia, elective amputations, or human cloning.

and an anti-trans government would certainly want something more forceful

To compare our hypothetical to a real-life instance of medical procedures being criminalized

This isn't a hypothetical, these laws are already passed in various states,and you're assuming the conclusion here when you say "criminalized". Banning does not imply criminal charges. Some states criminalize it, some (the majority, from what I understand) don't.

Anyway, what's the point of these questions? You asked what's less moderate than JK Rowling's position, I gave you two examples of real, actually existing things that meet the criteria. Why are you cherry-picking their practicality now?

though some more traditional societies can be very forceful about extralegal enforcement of social norms.

Yes, as are progressive societies about theirs. This just shows that there are many steps on either side of the spectrum, and it doesn't hit a wall with JK Rowling's position.

But do we know if Rowling is actually indifferent regarding other people's pronoun usage?

The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, if you want to say "there's nothing remotely moderate about Rowling's position" and it's on you to show how her position is extreme, not declare that since we can't prove that she didn't take a more extreme position, your original claim must be true by default, or mind-read her about what results of her advocacy she'd be happy with.

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