site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   39286 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So...there is a court case in the UK going on about the trans issue that I think will determine whether the fever is breaking or not

Basically: Mermaids, a pro-trans advocacy group is suing to remove the charity classification of another charity - the LGB Alliance. Mermaids alleges that LGBA (focused on gays and lesbians and against gender ideology) isn't a legitimate charity and will undermine Mermaids' work...and this apparently provides grounds to strip other charities in the UK?

What's fascinating is how bad Mermaids' showing during questioning is. A few of its members admit to not reading the full Cass Report that was so harsh on current gender affirmation in the UK and led to the Tavistock institute being shut down. Stuff like the following is common (TribunalTweets is covering the trial):

AR [LGBA attorney] - you don't accept that men are stronger and more prone to violence.

PR [Paul Roberts OBE, CEO of LGBT Consortium] - I don't have those statistics. I'm not an expert.

AR - we exclude all male bodies because we have no way to distiniguish between the overwhelming number of men who are not violent and those who are.

PR - I can't answer this without thinking about vulnerable transwomen.

AR - going back to the interpretation of the Eq Act in your witness statement. You are wrong, but we are going to disagree.

...

AR: moving on. You complained about a tweet by Bev Jackson who observed that female lesbians being driven off lesbian dating apps. If you are told by the people running the site

that you cannot specify that you only want to meet female bodied people you are being denied service by the dating site based on your sexual orientation.

PR - I'm not on these sites and not a woman.

AR - you complained about this tweet, so I hope you can answer some questions.

PR - yes

AR - Do you agree that those lesbians are being denied service based on sexuality.

PR - I believe that dating site is interpreting the Eq Act in the same way as I do, to be inclusive of trans women.

AR - let go back to the Stonewall definitions. Is it reasonable that a woman could be kicked off a lesbian dating site for that preference.

PR - The service is inclusive of transwomen.

AR - the definition of trans includes cross dressers. Does a lesbian have the right to exclude male cross dressers from her dating pool.

PR - if the service is inclusive, then a transwoman should be able to use that service.

AR - you are not focusing on the question. A woman is kicked off a dating site for specifying that she is only interested in female bodies. Is that reasonable?

PR - trans women should be able to access that service.

AR - we are not talking about trans women. We are talking about is it reasonable for lesbians to exclude men from their dating pool.

PR - back to trans women.

AR - it is clear that this is an example of a conflict between the rights of LGB people and trans people.

PR - there is no such conflict.

No real answer, just willful ignorance and obfuscation on basic topics and leaning on dogmatic phrases ("well, if transwomen are women").

Mermaids' simultaneously tries to hold the laughable position that they're not medical experts when questioned, despite all of their advocacy on sensitive issues like puberty blockers the rest of the time, including during questioning.

They also have no ability to reconcile their new beliefs with old progressive dogma (e.g. that men pose a significant threat to women due to their size and aggressiveness - hence the push for single-sex spaces for women under stuff like the Equality Act in the UK and Title IX in the US), which I think is why they want to shut down progressive critiques like LGBA.

I'm not surprised. Trans activists themselves have noted that they have more success if they can directly appeal to elites and make them feel as if this is the inevitable next move in progress. When you strip them of any aura of morality and just try to get basic answers things go harder for them cause they demand absurdities.

It's a shame that this isn't being televised because I believe some of these answers would quickly turn off not just normies but even median progressives. Especially last night where, upon being asked if a male with a penis could be a lesbian, the LGBA rep being questioned apparently go so emotional they had to adjourn.

Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, was invited by Michael Gibbon KC, counsel for Mermaids, to reflect on whether some people would have a different understanding of lesbian from the definition given by her organisation.

“That a lesbian can be a man with a penis?” she asked.

Gibbon responded: “Putting it in a more neutral way, that lesbians can include someone who is a woman as a result of gender reassignment.”

Harris, who is a lesbian, was distressed by the exchange, and the judge called for a short adjournment. Gibbon later apologised if he had “raised something inadvertently upsetting”. Harris said: “I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women … We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is.”

From a purely strategic level, crying women (especially crying minority women) may be exactly what's needed to wake some people up. Men are just too easily written off as aggressive and hateful. People seem to care about female and minority concerns more. Presumably the fear of this is exactly why Mermaids is trying to crush the LGB Alliance in the cradle.

I don’t think it indicates any kind of vawe breaking, this is intra-progressive infighting.

As such, disagreement is fundamentally to be resolved by who can cry the hardest. Or in more rational terms, about who can claim oppression status, women or ‘women’. Find out who gets to join the ranks of ordinary cis men as oppressors, cis women for oppressing the trans, or trans women for still being men?

The LGBA lawyer goes for the M&Ms argument that is the mark of a racist when applied to blacks. Mermaids counter with word games. The opponent’s riposte is to start crying, checkmate. I forgot which pigeon I was rooting for.

Absolutely, crying one's way to victory is not a legitimate strategy. It certainly shouldn't be effective.

I saw a video the other day of some Louisiana senator and some climate-NGO woman 'debating' the issue.

This is half of it, it then skips to the conclusion where AOC and a bunch of other people are insinuating that he abuses women.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=j3JHV8jAxEs

"Everything we make is derived from petrochemical products. What would you have me do, what would you do if you had the power?"

"Uh well I don't have the power! I'd ask you to feel it within your heart to do something."

He then asks about what they'd do with large ocean-going ships if fossil fuels are shutdown. Again she doesn't have an answer, she just tells him to feel it within his heart to do something!

This is an abominable way to make decisions: baiting men into getting frustrated with women who dodge factual, policy questions and then tar them as sexist. Policy should not be made by feelings within the heart but thoughts within the mind.

He then asks about what they'd do with large ocean-going ships if fossil fuels are shutdown.

Perhaps someday some genius will invent a way to propel ships with wind power.

I swear, one time I saw one of those "I fucking love science" type videos where someone stuck a few wind turbines on a CGI cargo ship. Wanted to troll you with it, but I can't find it for the life of me. Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

I personally feel like nuclear power would be better, but every ship having a nuke on it might be too pricey/challenging.

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