site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   38184 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd like you guys to refrain from responding to this message (the one you are reading right now) unless you either are someone who holds the beliefs I am trying to engage with, or you can steelman how someone who holds those beliefs would respond to what I'm saying. Expressions of agreement are useless to me here. Thank you. (I have tried to get this discussion going on Twitter, but as one would expect, it hasn't worked.)

clears throat

So you, hypothetical person, believe that if a trans child has been on puberty blockers for the maximum of two years, then they should be allowed to switch over to HRT, even if they haven't reached the age of consent. So, for example, if a child starts blockers at age 12, then they should be able to switch over at age 14, even though the age of consent is no lower than 16 anywhere in the United States.

Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex? If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.

First, HRT is done under the supervision of a medical professional. Medical professionals are gatekeepers for a lot of high-risk things. An MD can prescribe a 14 year old addictive opiate painkillers if they think it's medically appropriate, for example. In that sense, I don't see HRT as "special" compared to other medications that might be prescribed to a teenager by a doctor. Even if we're purely concerned with mental health questions, there are a lot of powerful psychiatric medications that can be prescribed to a minor, and I don't know that they're any less serious consequentially than HRT.

You make a very good point. To this, I counter: if a medical professional and both parents approve of a minor's marriage to an adult, shouldn't that be allowed, just as it's allowed for a minor to take opposite-sex hormones under those circumstances?

(This is not an example of the slippery slope fallacy, because I am attempting to apply meta-level reasoning across the board. The reason for the "groomer" discourse is that conservatives generally see these things as equivalent, while leftists don't.)

First, what professional do you have in mind? Medical doctors are trained in dispensing medicines, so it makes sense that we'd go to them for dispensing of a medicine. I don't know what profession is trained for what you're asking, or what professional standards you'd apply to them? MDs are probably the most tightly regulated profession there is, barring a few unusual ones like nuclear engineers. You say a medical professional, but unlike dispensing a medicine, I don't see why the question of matrimony is a medical one and why a medical doctor would have any particular expertise in it.

I mean, in order for a minor to receive HRT, a psychiatrist has to give approval, right? I don't know how it works, but I assume they ask some kind of pointed questions of both the minor and their parents in order to decide whether the issue they have is more likely to be dysphoria or something else. This power could be given to a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, or a.. yeah, this is a good question. I don't know who it would be.

Then why aren't they trying to ban marriage to minors in the states that allow it?

Wait wait HOLD THE PHONE HERE. skims the Wikipedia article So, uh, is there an exception to statutory rape law for married couples? If so, that's quite disturbing. If not, then the only benefit for the adult would be that they would get their spouse's money.

I believe it varies by state. I think some have exceptions for marriage, some have being married as a defense in a statutory rape case (not sure how that works legally, I'm not a lawyer), and some don't allow sex below the age of consent even if you're married to the person in question.

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