site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38042 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why not update in favor of gender-nonconforming people being generally susceptible to mental health issues?

Shooting up a Christian school is a psychotic thing to do before it is a «male» thing to do. Just because virtually all school shooters are men doesn't mean that the defining characteristic of school shooters is their gender.

Before this, both maleness and presumably some horrible mental health issue were both necessary conditions for school shootings. It seems very telling that in this case when we finally see a woman do it, it's one who saw themselves as a man, and was possibly treated with male sex hormones.

So whether it's "more" about maleness or mental illness doesn't really matter, because empirically you need to have both.

I agree with @ThenElection. You can weight the Male:FtM mass shooting rate against the Cis:Trans mass shooting rate to isolate how much is due to their intrinsic "maleness" vs how much is FtMs just being mentally ill. The math will be complicated by the need to control for the ratio of MtFs:FtMs, but it can be done.

So, a few scenarios that match with different hypotheses assuming Males and Females + MtFs and FtMs are both equally prevalent to avoid said complicated math.

A. "FtMs are male brains in female bodies", "trans people are not mentally ill"

Male:FtM mass shooting rate should be 1:1.

B. "FtMs are male brains in female bodies", "trans people are more mentally ill"

Male:FtM mass shooting rate = Cis:Trans mass shooting rate.

C. "FtMs are females passing themselves as male", "trans people are not mentally ill"

Male:FtM mass shooting rate = Male:Female mass shooting rate

D. "FtMs are females passing themselves as male", "trans people are more mentally ill"

Male:FtM mass shooting rate = Male:Female mass shooting rate * Cis:Trans mass shooting rate

So, a few scenarios that match with different hypotheses assuming Males and Females + MtFs and FtMs are both equally prevalent to avoid said complicated math.

Also, the data is very noisy; this is the first widely-publicized event of a transperson shooting up a school. If we buy that there are 10 events of this type of event per year in the first place and that FtMs are 1% of the population (these are both significant overestimates), then we should expect one shooter every 10 years to be trans.

Transness was (simplification) only invented 5-10 years ago, so we should one event perpetrated by an FtM every 10 years on average for #1 to be correct. This is probably going to take a while.

There was another widely publicized ftm trans identified person shooting up a school in Colorado a few years ago, sentenced to life + 38 years.

So under 4 years for FtM at least.

If for some reason FtM/ MtF disproportionately shot up schools compared to MtF/FtM, there may be some way to tease out some information there beyond the mental health connection, even if the rates for both are elevated above the general population.

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