site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   38201 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think if pride just meant LGB then there wouldn't be much backlash during pride month.

Gay men and lesbian women seem largely accepted by society, and I don't know of many recent controversies surrounding them.

The TQ part of the alphabet seems to be the lightning rod lately. The Ts mess with long established gender dynamics, more than LGBs ever did. The Qs often seem like they are faking for diversity points or engage in levels of ridiculousness that is hard to take seriously, for example there are popular videos out there of people identifying as birds and goblins. There is a real question of how much I have to buy into some strangers' fantasies and fetishes.

Importantly, as a matter of sheer numbers the TQ part is also a very small section of LGBTQ.

This makes me wonder if some kind of split is coming. LGBs can either continue allying with TQs and risk some society wide backlash. Or they can jettison the political hot potatoes and go fully mainstream tomorrow. I suspect democratic politicians in swing districts will be doing this, and so will large multi-national companies.

I think that the jettisoning's going to happen in five to ten years. We'll wind up with a de facto third and fourth gender (trans man, trans woman); I sure as hell hope that membership there doesn't imply or require irreversible medical treatment. As for queers...they're kinda the sex/gender liberals. We need 'em...but we also need conservatives in order to keep liberals from going insane.

*Consider the aphorism that conservatives are stupid and evil, while liberals are simply insane.

I don’t think this is true. It certainly wasn’t, historically. L and G were every bit as much the hot potatoes of their day. Monkey pox has nothing on the AIDS panic!

The culture war is always going to be fiercest on the edge of the Overton window. You know—highlighting each others’ worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric.

Asking when the LGBs are going to jettison the TQs is kind of like asking when the Republicans are going to jettison fundamentalists. There can’t be that many of them, right? And they say the darndest things.

I feel that conservatives quietly have jettisoned fundamentalists. Conservatives still accept their votes and donations, but it's not clear to me anything is being done to appeal to fundamentalists.

Roe was overturned. That's a fairly big win for us.

I think that is a win for the religious in general, not just fundamentalists. A fundamentalist specific win would be something like the biblical version of creation being taught in public school classrooms.

Comparable to a general victory for LGBTQs like a ban on discrimination by sexual preference vs a specific win for trans like opening women only institutions to MtF transitioners.

Asking when the LGBs are going to jettison the TQs is kind of like asking when the Republicans are going to jettison fundamentalists.

There's a difference: fundamentalists vote in large numbers so they provide continuing value to the general conservative movement.

Meanwhile:

  • the Ts are a small number, even within the movement.

  • Many of the gains of the Ls, Gs & Bs are locked in by judicial ruling so aren't going anywhere. Their allies certainly wouldn't dare roll them back if they sat this one out. Even the GOP has large numbers or even a bare majority in favor of gay marriage.

But I also don't think there'll be a jettisoning for that reason.

Because the "normie" gays like Andrew Sullivan either went on with their lives after winning the important battles or were turned off or defenestrated by the TQs and radicals who still need the movement - either for their unpopular goals or whatever psychological need for belonging or the perception of radical politics they have.

fundamentalists vote in large numbers so they provide continuing value to the general conservative movement.

It’s not just voting- you would be unable to run a conservative movement without using fundamentalists to do, well, almost everything. From staffing institutions that help no one’s career path on a resume to activism and volunteering to coming up with ideological veneer to accommodate different groups’ self interest to just providing a safe, cozy community conservative figures can wind up in if they want some time out of the limelight, the right is just critically dependent on fundamentalists constantly and in a wide variety of ways.

There already are orgs like the LGB Alliance, but unsurprisingly they were declared far-right Nazis. Even non-Queer Theory aligned pro-Trans orgs suffered that fate

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