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 -
An interesting tweet from Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1671370284102819841
My initial reaction to this was that "well, aren't you already allowing slurs on Twitter, Elon?" But then I realized that there's a distinction here - slurs may be allowed, but harassment is not. After all, he used the words "cis" and "cisgender" without any censorship, much like many would censor a typical slur such as "nigger" as "n*gger" or "n-word". You may be allowed to use "cis", but you're not allowed to directly call someone "cis" on the platform.
More to the point, I think it's very valid to describe "cis" and "cisgender" as a slur, insofar as a slur is something you call a group of people who don't want to be called that (similar to the "'TERF' is a slur" debate). Certainly, "cissy" is definitely a slur (which the person Elon Musk was replying to was called). So why don't people want to be called "cis"?
I think it's because labeling the vast majority of the population (something like 99%) and making them have to use a qualifier to describe themselves is a systematic effort to make them seem more different from the norm than they really are. For the vast majority of human existence, a woman would be described as "a woman", until suddenly (around the late 2010s or so), she would now have to be described as "a cis woman", to distinguish her from "a trans woman". The implied argument seems to be that "a woman" is now suddenly ambiguous and one does not know whether one is referring to a woman in the classical sense, or a trans woman.
I would agree with this, except that I still see many instances of "women" being used when it's really being used to refer to trans women. If a qualifier is needed now, why not just keep saying "trans women" all the way through? So the "cis" terminology seems to just be a ploy to redefine "woman" to by default mean "trans woman", thus making the "cis" qualifier necessary to refer to a woman in the classical sense. But this would seem to contradict one of the supposed goals of the trans movement, that trans people should be treated the same as non-trans people. Why not refer to trans women and "cis" women equally, without the qualifier?
And it's not like it's impossible to refer to non-trans people either. I've seen many terminologies used that are much more acceptable, such as "biological women", or "non-trans" as I've been using. There's also "assigned female at birth", but I feel like that's much more of a misnomer, as it implies that gender/sex is something you're "assigned" rather than a fundamental property that is immutable (at least with today's primitive technology).
Because normal people object to being called something other than normal? Trans people having so much support in the media skews how truly abnormal almost everyone thinks they are. Its a bizarre scene whenever a trans person enters any not-LGBTQ (on and on) place and starts trying to fit in. So they often don't even try, they just start being bizzare and demanding respect. Some FTM people can moderately pass as really weak looking soyboys. But they seem much less even a part of the project. Those are mostly very depressed people who's depression continues so brazenly through transition they are lucky to ever see people as they can often not exit their abode. Contrasted with the never passing loud MTFs that so often represent the movement, and well, the abnormality is so stark that calling something that is not that anything but normal is simply a bizarre turn of vocabulary.
I've never understood how people who are, essentially, less than 0.01% of the population have gained a comparatively much higher proportion when it comes to their representation in the popular conscience. Trans rights activists don't like the 0.01% argument, which is fine - but then they turn around and use it themselves by saying that a people that is 0.01% of the population is harmless. Which, besides being not how things work in any capacity, is having it both ways.
My uncharitable mental model of it is that liberals ran out of ways to paint conservatives as bigots.
Its important to the liberal worldview that they're the tolerant ones, and conservatives are the intolerant ones.
For a long time this was not a problem, because conservative had fairly negative views around gays, and to a lesser but still real extent non-martial sex.
Liberals won around those topics, the standard issue conservative now knows they're supposed to be respectful toward gays, and for the most part, they publicly at least, largely are.
They can be a little freer about complaining about non-martial sex, but they're very little they can actually do.
Liberals can't declare victory and go home though, its a forever culture war, so they need to find something that conservatives aren't yet tolerant of, so trans issues it is.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with that. Sometimes she doesn’t feel like polishing your spear.
Anyway. Let’s imagine that your enemies aren’t purely cynical operators, scrounging for facts to hold up their worldview. Can you think of a principle that might lead to similar conclusions? A reason to decide that both gay and trans people deserve support?
Wild. Well, only half, apparently. Which raises some other questions about what she means by “other contexts.”
I think your construction is a much more realistic principle. Centering conservatives doesn’t match the way people justify progressivism. Underdog support might not be specific enough, though. It’s a popular tack across societies.
The pre-war Progressives campaigned for collective (government) action against business interests and entrenched politics. Communism attempted to harness underdogs via class consciousness. Postmodernists asked whether the narratives and structures underpinning the modern world had any rational basis, or were merely fictions. There was always an idea that the underdogs were temporarily embarrassed millionaires. More importantly, there was an excuse for any non-embarrassed millionaire to remain a good leftist, so long as he or she was awoken to the plight of the underdog.
Strategically speaking, this is very useful. It also suggests a broader progressive principle: one’s circle of concern can (and should) be very large. Race, creed, nation are not supposed to be barriers to empathy. “Workers of the world, unite.”
But that phrase retains one caveat, because no ideology survives if it cannot defend itself. A hostile ideology is the one remaining target for discrimination. For the Soviets this was nominally decided by class. Modern progressivism updates it to account for a more liberal concept of free will. The circle of concern does not have to include those who have chosen to reject it.
That caveat is what sneaks in most of the modifiers and exceptions. It’s defensible on classical-liberal grounds, which makes it very familiar for Americans and our cultural umbrella. I think this definition—a broad but selective circle of concern—best fits the modern progressive philosophy.
You're probably right. "Underdog" does a better job of covering the nominal choice for power dynamics. For making predictions about who gets the benefit of the doubt. The "circle of concern" covers a lot of the ifs/ands/buts, though it is not unique to progressivism.
More options
Context Copy link
...But then you are forced, if you are honest, to admit that you are not in fact doing anything fundamentally different than the system you've replaced. You haven't actually made a world without discrimination, only changed who gets discriminated against. All the same postmodern and materialist and nihilist critiques apply equally as well to your new system as they did to the old one, and your values are exactly as arbitrary and ultimately pointless.
And once you've admitted that, we can agree that you have nothing to offer but might makes right, foreclose the moral arguments, and get down to the mightying.
Perhaps.
Theories derived from liberalism do tend to pick up speed until they hit the ski ramp that is “coercion.”
There is a loophole. Should everyone choose progressivism, the circle gets to cover all of them. No discrimination necessary. Also, poverty and violence are ended forever, and the Age of Aquarius is upon us. We did it, Reddit.
I assume most every American thinks something similar about their ingroup, mind you. It’s the natural intersection of tribalism with our civic religion. And tribalism is really, really adaptive. The catch is that cooperating in this game has huge advantages. There is an equilibrium where progressives tear themselves apart trying to draw a very careful circle of concern. Call me an optimist, I guess.
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
More options
Context Copy link