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.
Whatever came of Contrapoints getting canceled by other trans figures? Some right-wingers gloated about meta-cancer back then, but I guess you don't really cancel your stars after all?
This is a narrative which was promoted by the media, yes, I even imagine there's a grain of truth in it, but if she actually engaged with the «alt-right», it was on the condescending level of cooing and petting a spooked animal (and argument-free reviews to the effect of «I used to be in a dark place as a 4channer giganazi Cookie Monster joke enjoyer, but Contra
detransitionedderadicalized me, thanks now I can be myself» only reinforce this image. I have to plug in my old post «On Nazi Whisperers and closed memetic surfaces».Almost four years later, I still can't get into the mindset of a person who thinks his side loses every unbiased debate, but keeps believing in the cause and evangelizing it. This is a total profanation of what debates mean to me, on any level from the most brutish, chimp-like rhetorical power contest to the most quokka-esque rationalist «collaborative inquiry»; if not rigorous doubt, then at least depressive resignation ought to settle in as a result of repeatedly getting routed, I feel.
What I do know is that such robust belief grows coupled with disregard for debate and honesty in general.
I am not sure that any such people actually exist.
"I can't say I've ever seen someone in debate with a Pepe-grinning fascist come out on top." does not mean "I can't say I've ever seen someone win an unbiased debate against a Pepe-grinning fascist." There are many ways besides logical argument to come out on top of a debate. For example, you can Gish Gallop the opponent into giving up. Or you can out-charisma the opponent and make him look like a geek. Or you can decide to only debate in front of audiences that you know will be pre-disposed to support your side. Etc.
I am not sure that CounterPoints meant "I can't say I've ever seen someone rationally win an unbiased debate against a Pepe-grinning fascist."
I guess a lot depends on what "unbiased" means in this context.
It happens from time to time in religious debates. A few months ago there was a debate on sedevacantism (the idea that Vatican II was heretical and thus there hasn't been a true pope since the 1950s) where the "orthodox" Catholic got trounced so bad the moderator had to make a follow-up video defending his decision not to take down the debate.
My recollection of the incident was that Dimond(who, to be clear, is a lunatic that other sedevacantists want nothing to do with) won partly through happenstance and partly through his opponent’s overconfidence, with a side of it being a low point for orthodox conservative Catholicism, and that orthodox conservative Catholics mostly view it as a failed example of nutpicking rather than an indication of the sedevacantist position having particularly strong arguments in favor.
There’s plenty of examples of orthodox or mainstream traditionalist Catholics winning arguments with sedevacantists, after all.
Yeah, the overconfidence was thinking he’d be able to win a fair debate with rigorous cross-examination against Dimond. That won’t happen again.
How many of these are since Francis?
The one decent anti-sedevacantist argument is the Vatican I canon that Peter shall have “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church,” but this doesn’t make any of the Vatican II era heresies non-heretical, it just means that the papacy was BS from the beginning.
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