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 -
I agree it's a good test, but if we are not extrapolating our thinking to the relevant larger things in this context, then what we can discuss becomes limited. I like the people I like and I dislike the people I dislike. There's not much there.
If someone I like has an identity, 'fake' or 'real', in whatever sense, I'm not all that fussed about it. If I like them and it's real to them then it's real to me no problem. Because I like them. If it's fake to the outgroup I don't care. So long as they are not harming the ingroup I'd want anyone I like to have everything they need. Especially if the perception is that what they need is coming from the outgroup in some way. (I mean, tl;dr: I tolerate my ingroup, not the outgroup.)
You made Madden an example because they are so very easily outgroupable. No one wants to own the criminally insane outside of extreme circumstance. But if Madden can be used to harm the prospects of the ingroup in some way then that will get called out. Which is the immediate perceptions trannies have whenever this kind of thing gets brought up. And I'd argue their perceptions are entirely correct.
If this topic is only about our personal likes, then we all dislike Madden and there is nothing more to be said. If this is not about our personal taste then it's about respecting people and their identities and how far one could or should go. The only reason this is a topic in modern discourse is because of trannies. This subject, if anything is to be discussed, can only be understood through the lens of trans-rights. And to that end the matter has already been settled.
Trannies will get ingrouped, they will be placed in womens prisons or an extremely expensive alternative. Some women will be raped as a consequence and that's fine. We already accept mass rape as an acceptable price for others to pay for our modern moral sensibilities. The potential fallout and harm that might be caused by a few women being raped in jail is chicken shit compared to what's already been done and celebrated in the name of ending segregation.
This is true and you don’t even have to go to desegregation for examples- the US largely accepts that lots of people will get raped in male prisons, after all. Extending it to female prisons is just equality of the sexes.
You're right.
My usual spiel relates to rapes, violent assault and murder, all of which are dramatically exasperated by race tensions and desegregation. But I forgot to mention the two latter ones.
On that front the issue of violence in prisons in general is separate to the additional violence added on top of that due to nothing other than desegregation. The amount of violence added due to that policy dwarfs anything trannies could do in a womens prison. So the meat of the argument is the comparison between those two policies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link