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 -
When discussing pharmaceutical and surgical interventions in the treatment of gender dysphoria, the gender-critical among us often draw parallels with bodily integrity identity disorder. This is a rare psychiatric disorder in which a person experiences profound distress because of the presence of one or more of their limbs, and requests to have these limbs amputated to alleviate said distress (or tries to amputate them themselves). Colloquially, one might say that people with this condition are able-bodied but identify as disabled.
Given that no one thinks that surgical amputation is the correct treatment for this psychiatric disorder, we gender-criticals argued, it follows that surgical intervention is the wrong approach for people with gender dysphoria. If it's wrong to amputate a mentally ill's person's arm just because they say it's causing them distress, how can it be right to do the same for a penis or breast?
Sadly, one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens, the medical establishment has noted the parallels, and it is coming to a rather different conclusion:
Nothing specific to add to this* beyond despair. The Anglophone medical establishment appears to be fully ideologically captured. It doesn't matter if the Tavistock is shuttered and there's a rash of lawsuits directed at youth gender clinics in the US: if you're a medic who's internalised (or been made to internalise) the gender ideology worldview, the implications of that worldview and the role of the medical establishment it affirms have far-reaching implications in medical domains unrelated to gender medicine itself. At this point I honestly can't rule out psychiatrists prescribing anorexics appetite suppressants to aid them in achieving their "bodily attainment goals".
*Other than why the fuck are Canadian doctors so keen to help their fellow citizens maim or destroy their bodies??!!
This is a direct consequence of having a culture that values weakness above strength. When the former is valued more than the latter is it any surprise people deliberately try and become weaker to gain status? In his society the status and utility gained by our young man from having two fewer fingers exceeds the amount of utility he would have gained from those two intact fingers so from his point of view what he did was completely rational: It isn't him who is diseased, it is the culture around him.
There is no fix to this problem either. The only way out is replacement by a new culture that doesn't do this. The prognosis is terminal.
I agree with you but I also want to play devil's advocate a little bit. Do you, and I, and others actually feel like it'd be better to have a society that values the strong over the weak? It's not hard to imagine how that sort of society could be dystopian, too.
And is it a binary choice, or is there a middle, too, where we can have the strong and weak valued equally, or strong is valued over weak, but not so much that we get the effects we're seeing in society today? If I had to choose a society one way vs the other, I'm not sure which I'd choose.
If you care about the weak is it not better to do all you can to strengthen them, rather than to accommodate their weakness and encourage them to value it and make it part of their identity? Down that road lie self-destructive ideas like fat acceptance, or the opposition of some deaf people to a cure for their condition. Such ideas don't represent genuine compassion for those who are struggling but seek to keep them disempowered and dependent, while simultaneously assuaging the guilt of those stronger than them.
To be honest I'm sceptical that it's ever a good idea to rely on the goodwill of the strong to protect the weak. Following the Black Death in Europe, the resulting labour shortage left the remaining workers in a far better negotiating position than they had been in before, and using their additional leverage they were able to force the hand of their lords to grant them better conditions and relax some of the restrictions they'd had imposed on them as part of serfdom. This never would've occurred had their position not been strengthened (even if through an act of God rather than cultivation of personal virtue, in this case), no matter how many clerics might've appealed to the lords' sense of Christian charity.
I think it's the same today, relying on the benevolence of those in power is simply not a reliable way to win concessions compared to using leverage to force their hand. Of course, in some cases we can't strengthen people and so accommodating them is all we can do, but it should always be our second option after seeking to empower them.
I would like us to do all we can to strengthen the weak, including the means some view as "going against God's vision" or "essentially genocide" (referring to genetic modifications). It appears that the willingness to go against God's vision takes this lesser form, for now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO if it were as simple as choosing between strength and weakness as terminal social values, it's an obvious choice. And our societies have not chosen weakness, obviously - we just pretend, as an overreaction to the ostentatious pro-strength attitudes of mid-20th-century fascism, opposition to which has since been the West's moral compass needle (in combination with some lingering Christian ethics). But everyone and their dog knows, and knows either very consciously or deep in their bones, that strength is better than weakness. It's just become polite to act as if it weren't the case. But we know that we want to be strong, that it feels better, gets us better results, is seen as better by others. The ability to act, to do, to accomplish is praised, and even if not praised, is still obviously desirable in every way.
But one problem is that being strong is hard. Being weak is easy. And yes, western society has made it too comfortable to take the easy way out, both by raising the baseline level of comfort available even to abject failures, and by espousing pro-weakness rhetoric (that we then drag our heels to act on, because nobody sane really believes it, leading to more confusion).
Another problem is that even a society that openly praises strength and abhors weakness still has many failure modes, but arguably none worse than those of a society that pretends to love weakness.
Are we all just saying the same? I feel like we're beating a dead straw horse here.
More options
Context Copy link
Say there were two societies. One values strong over weak, the other weak over strong. Which is more competitive?
There's a huge continuum of possible societies. On the far end of weakness we have Harrison Bergeron and the handicapper-general. That's not a stable equilibrium, that vision of America will be predated upon. On the far end of strength we have rule by 1rep max and wrestler-princes. Again, not a stable equilibrium.
Yet surely the bulk of strength-first societies will outcompete weakness-first societies. You want tough, brave soldiers, hard-working and clever scientists, you want meritocracy. You want wealth flowing through to those who can make more wealth. Of course there are incidents where capable people look useless and useless people look capable, you need sophisticated methods to distinguish between talent and BS artists.
If you told me, there were two societies, one values strength over weakness, and the other weakness over strength, and asked me to choose, I would conclude two things:
I mean, come on! Who talks like that? Do you think that first society is going to have solid investment in research, developed logistics, good infrastructure? Or a dictator and a big army? You couldn't set up a better stereotype if you tried.
This is the plot to a stargate atlantis episode btw @FeepingCreature and @RandomRanger https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/The_Game
You just need god like tech and you can game the scenario out on some hapless humans on another planet.
More options
Context Copy link
I think they'll have all those things precisely because they know they're needed for strength.
It's the societies that favour weakness that are going to lag on infrastructure and research. It's not fair that some people are better at engineering, at innovating, at making new things. Stupid people can be #RealScientists too. Money should be redistributed from them to the non-productive. Everyone has positive rights, there are no responsibilities. Martially minded people are dangerous and give the ick, they need to be controlled and restrained (maybe to Harrison Bergeron levels). Lo and behold this society isn't going to last very long.
Strength is good actually, big armies are useful. What good is it to have scientists if they're whisked off by someone else? What good is it to have infrastructure if someone else marches in and takes the trains and ships? All these things are good in as far as they translate back into strength. There are ways to overstress and damage people, tradeoffs between long-term and short-term, game-theoretic considerations in many-player games... Yet strength is still good.
Iunno, I just feel like a society that talks like that is going to get critical investments very wrong. But also - the thing about strength is that once you have an army, you have to use it - or else you'll be outcompeted by the countries that didn't invest so much into strength as a terminal. Strength doesn't just allow you to defend, it requires you to attack. "If we didn't have this strength, we'd be invaded" is usually an excuse used by those countries that tend to do the invading. Meanwhile, hypothetically, your enemies have a five-country alliance of which one doesn't have an army at all, but just focuses on production. Why can they get away with that? Cause the other countries don't have to worry about that country feeling compelled to backstab them due to having invested so much into strength.
There are ways to use military power to get what you want non-violently. The US quelled the Chinese in the last Taiwan Straits crisis by sailing a carrier group in and demonstrating China's military weakness back in 1996. They blockaded Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US created a bunch of international institutions that serve US interests using military/economic power - they invented the UN for instance.
If you're strong enough you can bomb other countries with impunity like the US and Israel do in Syria.
Finally, use of strength can be profitable! Wagner's gold mines and holdings in Central Africa for instance, that's sustainable warfare. Or annexing land, that's how countries get their borders and the basis for their strength. Show me a major power and I'll show you a successful war-winner and land-annexer.
Alliances can also be a source of strength yet they are also fractious and problematic. Are all five countries equally threatened, do they take the enemy seriously? Are the weaker allies passing the buck to the stronger countries?
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
I think of it in terms of biology and selection pressure. Pressure to be better will result in better humans. Remove that (with redistribution or weird cultural forces) and degeneration must set in. It works that way for every other species and it's bizarre to me that people don't make the connection with our own.
There absolutely can be a middle ground, but it comes down to what sort of person is differentially reproducing.
More options
Context Copy link
It's necessary. I've thought about it a lot (while reading basically all of Nietzsches work, and doing the time where I was at my weakest myself). While it will make the world less kind, it will also make people less sensitive. When you value weakness, all it does is making people weaker, so that they're hurt more easily. These two factors seem to cancel out eachother. It's like lifting weights vs never exercising, the resistance you face is basically constant since you adjust to it.
And on other factors, strength has obvious advantages, they don't cancel out. I still value everything weak, but you need strength to protect the weak. It's like getting your heart-rate up so that your resting heart-rate will fall. Or working hard so that you can relax. Or sleeping so that you can be be alert. For the sake of X, we intentionally do the opposite of X. We challenge ourselves so that life will be less challenging in the future.
That said, not every metric is healthy. The strength should measured as discipline, will power, mental health, and competence. Not psychopathy or nihilism. I could take adderall and turn myself into a somewhat productive robot, but this is not the way in which I want to get stronger. Actually, my username is a reference to how being more human is better. Some people throw away their humanity as a way of overcoming their weaknesses, but I think such an approach is entirely mistaken. My definition of "strength" is basically the definition of health from a biological perspective. Not a moral perspective, mind you. I'm under the impression that a lot of our morality gives value to symptoms of poor mental health, like self-doubt (calling itself humble), excessive pity (calling itself compassion), cowardice (calling itself wisdom or safety). If you're feeling adventurous, you can experiment with yourself as the subject. Try for instance taking total responsibility for everything which happens to you, I think you will come to like it over time.
More options
Context Copy link
Let me voice the reactionary opinion: strength is good, actually.
Valuing traits that are signs of personal character - virtue, integrity, honor, personal fitness, stoicism - leads to strong individuals who lead strong societies. There is no shame in being weak: because no one is born perfect. But giving up on self-improvement, selfishly wallowing in one's own incapacity, that should be shamed, and those who make their identity of being weak should not be valued or praised.
A society that values strength will produce people of merit. A society that values weakness will produce people of no worth. People respond to material and social incentives. A middling society that attempts to equivocate between the two will only create confusion: pretending that strength is equally as valid as weakness is obviously degenerate. I'd much rather have a paternal society which encourages fortitude than a maternal one which coddles the thin-skinned. If liberals say that it's dystopian and cruel, I'll tell them to touch grass.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link