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 -
They encourage people to use cult-approved sources of information, generally other sources inside the cult, and disapprove or punish the acquisition of information from non-approved sources. The fact that transgendermap links directly to O'Mally, in her own words, seems quite the opposite of that.
Not quite. Discouraging even looking at outsider information is too obvious (contrary to popular belief, the typical victim of a cult is pretty intelligent), so what you actually want to do is convince your followers that a certain class of arguments is evil. That way they'll stop themselves from considering the arguments without the impression they're being prevented from looking at something.
You'll notice that you yourself have pointed out O'Mally's positions are "anti-trans" according to the website, even though in itself there's nothing anti-trans about "disease models", "gatekeeping", or ROGD (or even "LGB without the T" though I can grant that it's more debatable).
It's funny you should say that. Every single link on that page links to another page on the website itself, not to primary sources where O'Malley explains her positions in her own words. The only direct link to her material is a link to the homepage of her personal website, but by that doesn't help you find what her arguments about the mentioned positions are, and point the well is poisoned anyway.
BTW, do you think that portrait on top is neutral and accurate, or might be at all caricatured?
That's why the descriptions of those positions link to other articles explaining why they're anti-trans. Maybe you don't think they're anti-trans but the site authors do and link to specific arguments for why they think that.
This is just false? In addition to the link to O'Malley's own site it contains a link to Beyond WPATH. An anti-WPATH declaration of which O'Malley is a signatory. As well as O'Malley's Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Substack, YouTube and more. As I write this there are five articles about trans issues, four of them about ROGD, on the first page of the substack as I write this. If people want to read O'Malley's beliefs about trans people in her own words, transgendermap has told them where to go!
Relevance?
Right, like I pointed out, cults don't tend to censor members' access to information, they just tell them which information is hostile.
Ooops, should have kept scrolling.
Other then the anti-WPATH declaration, all of them are main profile pages, not citations to the specific arguments.
Again, cults don't actually prevent you from "going to" information they consider hostile, they just tell you it's hostile
What is the point of caricaturing her, if they're just "presenting information"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link