site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   34966 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Attempting to shape children's values and worldviews in ways their parents consider abhorrent is not a legitimate goal in a democratic society.

Again, it is inevitable that government will shape children's values and worldviews in ways which some parents will find abhorrent. That might be in school lessons, or books available in libraries, or even in failing to censor TV programs. Negotiating those competing values is what politics is all about. Once again, if labor unions, and Nazis, and Communists, and segregationists, and flat earthers, and Hindu nationalists and Mormons can legitimately lobby schools in an effort to change students' views of their movements, why is there a special rule for LGBTQ people?

Edit: And again, schools are in the business of inculcating values and what values should or should not be inculcated is a subject of political contestation. In a democratic society

everyone gets to make their case about what those values should be. They don't, however, have the right to win, obviously. Hence my initial point that attempting to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society.

Again, it is inevitable that government will shape children's values and worldviews in ways which some parents will find abhorrent.

And as long as those parents are a very small minority, that's not a problem. When they start approaching an outright majority, which you are attempting to work around by means of lying to the public about what you're actually doing, problems emerge. Even if they're merely a very large minority, you still have the problem that if they object strongly enough, things break. Democracy survives because people see its survival as conducive to their interests. People value their children very, very highly, and if you force them to choose between their children's wellbeing and democratic institutions, you may not like their choice.

And again, schools are in the business of inculcating values and what values should or should not be inculcated is a subject of political contestation.

We should either arrive at a democratic consensus on what values the schools are going to teach, or we should stop having public schools, and maybe stop having a number of other things too. I reject your assertion of normalcy categorically; no part of this is normal, as evidenced by the long history of lies and secretive behavior on the part of the educators pushing this bullshit. They hide it because they know that if they didn't, people would organize to stop them even quicker. No argument for procedure or norm you can summon will outweigh that simple fact.

And as long as those parents are a very small minority, that's not a problem. When they start approaching an outright majority, which you are attempting to work around by means of lying to the public about what you're actually doing, problems emerge.

I don’t know what any of this has to do with OP's claim, which was that ANY attempt to inculcate sympathy for the LGBTQ movement is somehow illegitimate, regardless of whether they are "lying to the public about what they are doing.

no part of this is normal, as evidenced by the long history of lies and secretive behavior on the part of the educators pushing this bullshit.

You realize, of course, that "educators pushing bullshit" is precisely how everyone describes teaching ideas they disagree with, be it traditional rah-rah patriotism, or "family values", or the "Lost Cause" interpretation of the Civil War, or the Aryan invasion thesis.

They don't, however, have the right to win, obviously.

I think some good-sized portion of LGBT activists think they do have a right to win, actually - their rights are human rights, after all - and have shown a willingness to use extraordinary means to do so. Your "attempting to influence the perception" generalization covers a lot of activity - lying, gaslighting, intimidation, harassment, insubordination - that I would not agree is perfectly legitimate.

I think some good-sized portion of LGBT activists think they do have a right to win, actually

Maybe, but we are talking about my argument, not theirs, right?

Your "attempting to influence the perception" generalization covers a lot of activity - lying, gaslighting, intimidation, harassment, insubordination - that I would not agree is perfectly legitimate.

It was actually not my generalization. It was OP's generalization that ALL such efforts are illegitimate, not merely the subset to which you refer. So it sounds like we both disagree with him.

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