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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Contrapoints released her newest video yesterday. As someone who has found a number of her past videos to be well done and interesting (they're generally better the further back you go), this one was disappointing. Some random thoughts:
Contrapoints made a name for herself through actually engaging with the "alt-right" and by being willing to make real arguments in response to conservatives; now it seems like she's totally bought into some of the worst argumentation styles of the woke left. Most annoying to me is the frequency with which Natalie begs the question by referring to "trans rights" as if they're some unobjectionable, neutral thing that only "bigots" could oppose. Interestingly, the only time she actually concretely discusses a supposed "trans right" (males competing in women's sports), she agrees that there is a debate to be had here. Of course, no mention of kids transitioning, males in women's prisons, etc. Just "trans rights" in the abstract. The one thing Contrapoints is clear about is that not acknowledging that "trans women are women" is at the least "transphobic" (if not a violation of "trans rights" in some hard to define way), which is interesting. What does it mean to be "transphobic"? Could one not be "transphobic" and still refuse to acknowledge that "trans women are women"? Because I would like to say that I'm not "transphobic" on the basis that I don't think trans people should be denied rights that we accord to others, or that they should be forcibly prevented from dressing like women, or even (if over 18) allowed to surgically alter themselves to match their desired gender identity (perhaps with some reasonable safeguards).
I think she makes some good arguments about the fact that there are always limits to debate. She talks about how LGBTQ activists essentially "cancelled" an old anti-gay activist Anita Bryant, with the implication that most people nowadays would agree with that cancellation. Of course, I would simply say that there are meaningful differences between gay activism and trans activism (e.g., gay people were fighting against laws that criminalized consensual behavior between adults; trans people often are fighting to allow children to mutilate themselves). Nonetheless, I do take her point: Arguing against "cancellation" or "illiberal" tactics in the abstract is kind of pointless, because almost no one is a true free speech absolutist here. If, say, someone was going around and gathering a following by literally advocating for the murder of Jews, I think a lot of us would agree that public shaming (at the least) would be appropriate. That means that one must always have some object-level discussion about what people are being cancelled for before one can reasonably argue that any given cancellation is unacceptable. It's hardly a groundbreaking observation, but it's true nonetheless that there must be a line somewhere that would make "cancel culture" type tactics acceptable; we're all just debating where that line is.
Finally, I was surprised to see how much more aggressive Rowling has gotten in her anti-trans rhetoric. Not that I necessarily disagree with her, but it looks like I can no longer say that she's being unfairly smeared as an enemy of the trans movement.
Anyways, I would be curious on others thoughts here (assuming anyone is willing to watch a nearly two hour video by someone most would consider an ideological opponent.
I'll bite the bullet and say I don't think there's any line where cancel culture type tactics are acceptable.
If person A wants to speak and person B wants to listen, then it's not acceptable for unrelated third party C to prevent this from occurring.
The only exception would be if person A or person B was breaching some duty they owed to person C. For example, if person A signed a non-disclosure agreement with person C.
I think there's another place where blocking the communication between A and B, where both A and B want that communication to happen, where a third party C still has a legitimate interest in preventing that communication from happening. Consider the case where person A (Alice) has access to detailed instructions on how to construct nuclear weapons, and person B (Bob) wants to buy those instructions off her. Alice wants this communication to happen, because she estimates that the chance that Bob will actually build and use nuclear weapons in a way that harms her is fairly low, and Bob wants this communication to happen because he wants to gain the ability to construct nuclear weapons.
I claim that it is legitimately in the interests of person C (the rest of us humans on Earth) to prevent that communication from happening, even if Alice had never signed a nondisclosure agreement.
I think there is in fact a line. Though that line is pretty fucking far from "misgendering someone".
If Alice is breaching a duty, for example if she works for the US government and is obligated to keep nuclear secrets confidential, then it's proper for the US government to intervene and stop her from speaking. If Alice obtained the nuclear secrets without incurring or breaching a duty, for example if she found them laying on the street, then there's no proper basis to stop her from speaking, even if her speech is likely to cause harm.
There are lots of things that may be in Person C's legitimate interest but are nevertheless are impermissible because they infringe the rights of others. Person C may want a new Rolex watch and it therefore may be in Person C's interest to steal a Rolex from the jewelry store, but that doesn't make it permissible to do so because stealing a Rolex involves violating the rights of others.
The current policy in the US is that certain information, specifically the design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons, is born secret. Philosophically this is a really ugly and unprincipled hack, and it's probably unconstitutional. As you say, there is no proper basis to stop her from speaking, and it totally violates her rights. Moreover, once the exception is carved out, I expect that politicians will twist the intent and make it illegal to talk about other, non-dangerous-but-enraging-or-embarrassing stuff for the purposes of "national security".
I hate it. And yet, on the balance, I'd rather live in a world where the policy exists than one where it doesn't, because I expect the world that has that policy to contain nice things like "cities" for several more decades than the one where that information is a free-for-all.
I guess I come out on this the way Sam Harris comes out on torture. He argues torture should be illegal, but nevertheless there are situations where it should be done anyway, such as if a terrorist has hidden a nuclear bomb in a city and torture is the only way to discover its whereabouts. In truly extreme situations, morally repugnant acts may be necessary.
I think censorship is repugnant even when it's used to prevent the disclosure of nuclear secrets, but perhaps it's a necessary evil in extremis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link