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.
Contrapoints is a sophist. The purpose of "her" videos is not to convince , it's to basically provide a good narrative to her own base as well as something they can point to as a retort to the criticisms they'll face defending their ideology. Example: how so many Breadtubers who were challenged on what exactly Rowling said that was bigoted would bring out her original video - you wonder how many people actually read the substance of her words vs the mediated version Contra gave? (IIRC the question-begging on "what is a woman?" was there too btw.) The fact that no detached observer would dedicate time to this must have simply given them the chance to write their opponent off.
I watched the video. There are so many flaws. Not only the question begging but also the desire to psychoanalyze Rowling as projecting her hatred of her rapist unto transpeople or being horrified at the idea of sterilizing children due to internalized misogyny since that's all society values women for.
First off - this once again deliberately ignores the distinction between being worried that allowing any men in female washrooms will allow predators and the predators being trans. Contra is smart enough to know better. She chooses not.
Second- the simple answer is that Rowling is aggressive towards TRAs because they're the ones trying to do things like invade single sex sexual assault shelters. They started it. If someone else did it she'd have furiously tweeted too.
Third - the idea that JK Rowling thinks the only role for a woman is motherhood is insane. But Contrapoints apparently can almost never admit that there are serious downsides to trans activism (this was quite clear in the Phelps-Roper podcast) so she can't admit that there is a risk of children being rendered sterile - which is awful since they can't consent - that JKR is right to be concerned about outside of some pathology around being a self-hating self-made billionaire who wrote one of the most famous feminist characters in YA fiction.
This is exactly the problem Nicola Sturgeon ran into: they call anyone who argues that TWANW(sometimes) a bigot but are forced to admit that even they believe in exceptions that imply TWANW.
Good thing they never address this incoherency.
This is exactly why I say Contra is bad faith; this doesn't capture the landscape.
People aren't just arguing about it in the abstract. Contrapoints is ensuring that only the most abstract case gets discussed by insisting on begging the question on whether trans activism is in some ways distinct from other forms of activism (which would mean the cancellations could be more unjust than past ones without requiring an abstract "no cancellation" principle).
As you say, this question-begging is silly when her own concession on trans sports violates it but she otherwise sticks to it. As a result, it makes it sound like her opponents are just saying "cancellation is bad" cause that's what she criticizes.
And that sort of mushy view might be a fair characterization of Phelps-Roper and some but a lot of these critics like Rowling are progressives themselves. She, iirc, inveighed against Corbyn for anti-semitism. Sam Harris said there was reasonable discussion on the issue activists were suppressing but he was fine pushing people like Alex Jones off platforms. They are not necessarily opposed to cancellation as such, they think it's awful here (uncharitably, since the leopard ate their face).
This entire "debate" is a virtual debate Contra has constructed based on her undefended premises. As I said, it's not an argument for anyone who doesn't already agree with her on everything. It's really about talking to her audience and telling them "hold strong on cancelling these guys. Resist the siren's call of 'reasonable discussion'. The past bigots did that too. It's okay cause we've done it before and it works". It's about inoculating her base using the weakest version of the argument, the one Nazis could use instead of the ones their fellow progressives (who are out of step with the tribe on this one issue) would use.
It's a case of mutual polarization. Because Rowling actually believes in the misogyny of this situation she reacts badly to the reaction she faced (and they have also become more hysterical in turn). With some justice. Seeing men like Contrapoints brush off her concerns about sexual assault is jarring because not too long ago it would seem clear misogyny.
As for whether she's an enemy of the trans movement: it depends on what the trans movement is. If all it wants is reasonable accommodation for ordinary transpeople then no. If what it wants is total victory at the potential cost of women's spaces then yes.
Once again Contrapoints' question-begging comes back to haunt us. If trans activism is somewhat distinct from other movements, what might seem very aggressive in the case of gay rights might be justifiably less so here.
I think this is exactly right, thanks for articulating it. As someone who is relatively sympathetic to the original gay rights movement, the whole time she was talking about Anita Bryant I was thinking, "Okay, sure, it was unjust for gay people to be thrown in jail for sodomy, and so maybe some form of "cancellation" was justified here, but that's way different than the kind of changes that trans activists are demanding!"
You see this kind of rhetorical move used a lot by the woke--drawing on the essentially universal consensus that the civil rights movement was a good thing, and then trying to make parallels between the activism of that era and the activism of our own, and implying that the moral questions are just as easy to answer now as they were back then. I see a similar move being made by "abolitionists" who clearly chose the term to evoke slavery abolitionists, even though abolishing slavery and abolishing the police are radically different types of policies and have almost nothing to do with each other.
As to Rowling: I guess by "enemy of the trans movement" I was more trying to get at the fact that she is now someone who says things that your average progressive wouldn't agree with, even in private (whereas saying there should be reasonable restrictions on sports, minors transitioning, etc., can get agreement in private even from a lot of liberals). I used to use Rowling as a good example of unreasonable cancellation because she wasn't even saying things that were outside the realm of normal progressive discourse, but now that she's passed that boundary she no longer can serve as an easy example of leftist overreach (although I still think she has been unreasonably cancelled and I largely agree with her).
I think to be fair, during the actual civil rights era these weren't considered easy questions to answer. We went from 4% of polled Americans supporting interracial marriage in 1959, to 94% today. The argument is that it was only because a small and annoying minority of 4% argued their point in the marketplace of ideas that support for interracial marriage can be so high today. MLK Jr. was one of the most hated men in America, and considered a dangerous radical.
Certainly, for any civil rights struggle there would have once been a time when the average American wouldn't have accepted that the thing under discussion was an easy question, even if we look back and see it as a no brainer.
I think it goes without saying that if trans activists "win", then in 40 years it will be just as "obvious" that they were right to most people.
‘Her’ argument is arc-of-history triumphalism, but am I the only one who notices that arc-of-history triumphalism is by nature an inapplicable argument even if you accept the underlying frame? Opposing interracial marriage is verboten today because 94% of the population supports it, and this wasn’t something anyone could have predicted in 1965.
More options
Context Copy link
Counter-example: pro-abortion activists "won" in 1973, but the thing they won remained just as controversial as ever for the next fifty years.
More options
Context Copy link
It goes without saying because it's tautological. No one will see them as having won, unless most people agree with them.
I agree with you he made a mistake by saying the moral questions of the past were easy even back then, but the rhetorical trick he pointed out is real. It goes more like: people like you objected to civil rights, but almost everybody including you is now on board with them, therefore you should now support X without objection, because it's just a question of time before we all realize this is the Right Side of History. Being correct is assumed, and the necessity to argue their case is rejected.
The issue is that there are also plenty of horrors that we have carried out in the name of progress, and it also wasn't obvious at the time how horrifying they're going to be. I'd have no issue with the process of us living and learning, if it wasn't for the obvious difference in how these things are remembered. Horrors against progressivism are enshrined in history as things we must Never Forget, lest we repeat past mistakes. Horrors of progressivism are either outright forgotten, swept under nervous coughs, covered up with "well, we had good intentions", or pinned on a different ideology.
And today that's how we see transphobes! Coincidence?
Bingo.
Consider that state-enforced eugenics used to be a progressive policy. Just following the science!!
Alcohol prohibition too. That gets a little muddled (protestants/evangelicals and progressives working together??) but consider how progressives call for bans on trans fats and sugary drinks nowadays.
Progressive policies often win the day, but not always. And they usually write their failures so they do not get attributed to their ideology and they write their successes to seem inevitable.
This adds an extra layer of fallacy by pretending opponents of progressive policies all either changed their mind or ended up on the wrong side of history, even if the issues ARE comparable.
This is one reason why, as a progressive, I believe that a strong and vibrant conservative movement is not just desirable but necessary for progressivism to succeed. Progressivism is supposed to be about progress (I think the term has been mostly redefined due to use by its own proponents to mean something else in recent years), and progress isn't the same thing as change - for change to be progress, it has to be forward in some meaningful way, in this context something like better. Anyone is going to have the bias that the change they want will accomplish something better than before, and so progressives can't be trusted to accurately assess whether the changes we're calling for is actually progress or just change that we genuinely believe is good. So we need people to argue and fight against us so that the strongest, most correct changes are the ones that stand up to scrutiny and are actually implemented, while the weakest, most misguided changes get trashed. It's highly imperfect and messy, but that's the best way I can see for us to even make a sort of attempt at achieving actual progress rather than merely change that I've convinced myself is progress.
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
More options
Context Copy link