site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33484 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They actually didn't "ban Pride flags"; they banned flags of any race, religion, sexual orientation or political affiliation being flown on government property. If anything, the conservative Muslims of Hamtramck are taking a stand for classical liberalism by only allowing the stars-and-stripes on government buildings (and presumably the flags of the city and state). I don't think this would have been controversial even 10 years, and certainly not 20 years ago. The only totalizing religion at work here is homosexuality - the old refrain of "but how does it affect you?" rings very hollow when the faithful are demanding public displays of obeisance.

If anything, the conservative Muslims of Hamtramck are taking a stand for classical liberalism by only allowing the stars-and-stripes on government buildings (and presumably the flags of the city and state).

If we went back to that everywhere, I'd accept it. No religion flags, no Pride flags, no "this is International Cat Grooming Day" flags, just the national flag on government buildings and you can fly whatever damn flag you like from your own house. Yeah, even the Confederate flag, go for it. Maybe the Nazi version of the swastika would be pushing it, keep that one indoors boys.

The 'not compulsory only it is' Rainbow Flags everywhere for June annoys me mainly because nobody else would get the same treatment. Though I am starting to laugh at the iterations of Progress Pride etc. because each new version is more crowded and uglier than the last one. I have no idea where they're going to shove the Furry Pride emblems on the design when we get to that point.

Good God, that's ugly. What happened to all that gloating that being gay/queer was so superior to boring old vanilla cishets, because queerness was fashion and glamour and creativity and art?

It's like taking drugs - sure, some drugs can inspire creative breakthroughs, if you also do a lot of creative work. But if all you do is taking drugs and looking for drugs and talk about which drugs to take - there would be no creativity coming out there. I think you need a solid foundation and maybe a little crazy to make it not boring. But if you have 100% crazy and none of the foundation - then it's just chaos.

And Eugene Volokh seems to think it applies only to flags flown on city flagpoles rather than a ban on people carrying the flag on city streets, in parks, etc (such a ban would almost certainly be unconstitutional).

If anything, the conservative Muslims of Hamtramck are taking a stand for classical liberalism by only allowing the stars-and-stripes on government buildings (and presumably the flags of the city and state).

Or they are just politically savvy enough to know that this is what they can get away with.

Tomato, Tomatah

See, I have to wonder about this kind of thing. What other flag could they possibly have in mind that they wanted banned? The Nazi flag? Unlikely to be flown there. The Gadsen flag? Probably not very salient politically to Muslims.

I won't deny the possibility that this really is some "Pride is not for the government to approve or disapprove via flags" principle, but I think this ban has a good chance of having been crafted specifically with the intention to ban the Pride flag from being flown. I legitimately cannot think of another flag which many Americans know the meaning of on sight.

Let's ask a different question: if it applies broadly, does it matter to you why it was passed?

It recontextualizes the event. "Muslims ban Pride flag from their city" is a tailor-made headline for those who are anti-LGBT and find it acceptable to support Muslims when, in many cases, they would have openly reviled the religion only few years ago. "Muslims ban all flags except US flag from being displayed on government buildings" gets far less traction.

Moreover, suppose other cities across the US start doing this - are we going to be talking about the wave of liberalism sweeping rural conservative towns, or are we going to talk about bigots emulating other bigots?

Death of the author at play- the actual motivations don't matter, and there could be multiple overlapping motivations anyways; what gets talked about is, as you point out, whatever gets traction and I would add satisfies the biases of the loudest people.

Why is this in any way good? I sincerely hope that people here, even if they are totally anti-LGBT, would correct the record if the more accurate interpretation is that this is an anti-Pride action. I expect I'll be disappointed, unfortunately.

Talking about bigots emulating bigots hinges on who gets to define bigots; Mottezans like to fuss a lot about progressive bigotry but that never really gets traction elsewhere. Or slightly more historically, "Democrats are the real racists" is pointing at a serious phenomenon, even moreso now than in its heyday, but never really 'worked' because the people saying it don't have the privilege of defining racist.

I think that if people here were to set aside their partisan politics, they would agree with me that it is bigotry to hate someone for that which they cannot control. The defenses of anti-LGBT sentiment I see here fall into 2 categories of justification, though I'm sure I've missed at least one:

  1. There is a controllable element to being LGBT i.e schools and media are encouraging kids to identify as gay.

  2. Pride and progressive activism are so tightly wrapped together that when someone waves the latest Pride flag, they're signaling their support of many non-related beliefs as well (more cynically, each Pride flag is being virtually planted to demonstrate areas of control)

In other words, no one is out here saying that progressive orthodoxy on the inherent nature of being LGBT+ is correct, but it is still okay to hate those people.

There is a more interesting argument to be had about the etiology of being not-straight or not-gender-conforming, but only because the people interested in discussing it tend to be less interested in describing the left as a Cordyceps.

Is "this" here meaning the flag restriction, or the death of the author "intent doesn't matter" part?

I didn't say the death of the author was good

The latter, and I'm sorry for implying you thought it was good. It seemed to me that you were trying to defend it as okay. Like, yeah, I get that it's inevitable, but it should not be tolerated here.

Would you be satisfied if someone tried to both/and it: this is almost certainly intended an anti-Pride action, but performed in a manner that is actually a healthier expression of liberalism?

I'm not certain that it is. The odds of another flag being flown on government buildings is slim. I suspect the Muslims of the city are not as upset if they see a flag for Ukraine. They might get more offended by a BLM flag, but I don't know.

Banning lots of things that won't happen anyways strikes me as irrelevant to any kind of redemption of the law itself.

It helps this position that Petes Thiel and Buttigieg get treated poorly for not toeing every line.

What are you referring to?

"here" being the Motte, yes? I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple conservatives and conservative Christians who might take that stance, though they might try to thread one of the needles like "having homosexual attraction is inherent; it's acting upon it that's disordered and bad."

I'm not certain the stance is exactly the same. My understanding of the religious conservative standpoint is that they think it's a test by God, whereas progressives are overwhelming secular in originating their arguments. But I grasp your point.

Is there anywhere anyone still has that argument? I do think it's interesting, but there's nowhere I know of it can be had where it wouldn't devolve into chaos. Maybe the schism, maybe, depending who shows up that's not one of the main regulars.

It was on the old subreddit once, brought up by naraburns, I believe.

More comments

I legitimately cannot think of another flag which many Americans know the meaning of on sight.

Confederate, Ukrainian, BLM.

I’d say also China, UK, Canada as far as national flags go. Possibly Mexico.

Confederate, Ukrainian, BLM.

...Gadsen's Flag, Thin Blue Line, III%, Clenched Fist, Rastafarian, PoW MIA, Free Vietnam, St George's Cross, assorted Football teams..

I guess the question is what counts as ‘many’, then.

Huh, not actually sure I’ve seen anyone flying most of those. Definitely seen POW, and surely someone’s had the Gadsden up. Bumper stickers or merch for both, of course, as well as fist and Rasta.

If I saw the St. George’s Cross, I’d probably spend a bit trying to figure out which Nordic country they were repping. Turns out it’s actually England instead.

If I saw the St. George’s Cross, I’d probably spend a bit trying to figure out which Nordic country they were repping. Turns out it’s actually England instead.

More like Anglicans though where I'm from at least it's become more associated with more conservative leaning/orthodox Christians in general. Which is Ironic given the path that the anglican church in England has chosen but folks here recognize the call-back

This also seems like an opportune moment to link one of my favorite sketches.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4

In England, the St George's Cross flag is primarily associated with support for English national sports teams - many sports originated in the UK with the first "international" matches being England vs. Scotland, so the various British countries maintain their own national teams as a kind of historical curiosity. There are enough wokestupids with Grauniad columns who think that supporting your own country in international sporting competitions is racist for there to be a controversy about the flag every time there is a major international football tournament.

Im sure there are at least a couple English expats/sports fans across the Southern US who don't understand why the keep getting invited to Church Retreats. ;-)

The Nordic countries have the vertical part shifted toward the hoist.

Really? We live in the same metroplex and I’ve seen most of those flags flying around- plus the Texas independence flag, oathkeepers, confederate with a marijuana leaf, Christian flag, and trump for king flag.

Okay, that's fair. I think my overall point stands, however - they're not particularly worried about those flags.

Not only is it public obedience, but it’s public obedience that is inherently interesting for children, as they have a natural interest in colorful things and unique identity marks that give social reinforcement. It is certainly making some percentage points of the children gay, the only question is what percent.

To what degree it is currently de rigueur to accept as self-evident that homosexuality is innate is unclear to me, but if we believe Lady Gaga (and why wouldn't we?) it is. On the other side we have voices suggesting gayness, like sexual paraphilia (and I sometimes wonder if this term is even used any more or is seen as 'intolerant,') is a product of formative experiences in childhood (I've read for example Camille Paglia making this claim.) I am so far not compelled by the arguments of either side, particularly as often neither side makes arguments beyond that that their conclusions are obvious and to question them is at best silly (see the wry cartoons of a person beibg asked "When did you realize you were straight?") and at worst evidence of some serious character flaw/maliciousness in the questioner.

In my thinking here both views are now hopelessly mired (at least in the US) in politics, and while I am not as dogmatic as some in insisiting that social science is all garbage, I also have eyes to see, and yes, much of it (and much of psychology) to me seems to intellectually bear rotten fruit.

Having thumbed all that out, I think personally that even if we are to passively accept that a fetish might indeed be born of and from childhood circumstances, one would have to assume such circumstances were at least in some may imaginatively sensual--insert any evocative image from your own childhood as illustration. Even then, though, we are assuming, playing with self-report and reconstruction of motive, without the kind of empirical verification one might demand in other circumstances. But let'w say we accept it anyway. It still seems a jump, as ＠Gdanning suggests, that pride flags and a general ethos of gayness will produce spontaneously in boys a desire to fellate members of their peeergroup. It might make these same boys less traditionally masculine, sure (though I have my doubts how much influence Miss Bardwell pinning Pride flags on bulletin boards or organizing Pride summits or whatever will have on the realities of the locker room). It might make them more accepting of gayness as a norm, which is arguably very much a good thing.

There seems, in your post, to be a kind of knee-jerk reaction happening--I mean my knee jerks as much as the next person and it's true I am not really exposed to this kind of Pridemania where I am. But suggesting that it all is going to cause an uptick in gayness I believe requires a bit more rigor than you seem to be applying.

Ancient Greek and Rome had perhaps 90% of men engaging in sex with young men. This seems high to me, but I must accept that there have been substantial genetic changes in humanity since that time or 90% of men would engage in homosexual acts if society told them it was normal.

There were extensive incursions of Germanic tribes that did not routinely engage in homosexual sodomy, but gene analysis does not support enough of a change to suggest that the behavioral difference is genetic. At least, that is my understanding.

Ovid was out of step with Roman society, and Juvenal, Martial, Stabo, and Lucian, in suggesting that sex with women was superior. It seems that most Roman men, perhaps almost all, preferred to have sex with teen boys rather than women.

It seems that Roman homosexuality came from Greek influence in the second century BC. I think this strongly suggests that homosexuality can be culturally nurtured. I wonder what the upper limit it. In Ancient Rome and Greece it seemed remarkably high. I wonder if there is a more modern society where more than 50% of men engage in gay sex? Perhaps Arab societies?

I find this weird, but I suppose it is just as strange as realizing that I would be a pious Muslim or enjoy eating fermented herring should I have been born in different circumstances.

Ancient Greek and Rome had perhaps 90% of men engaging in sex with young men.

X

More specifically, keeping an adolescent femboy slave was a high status aristocratic thing, but the Roman elite seemed to think it a little strange to actually prefer screwing him over women. The emperor Hadrian, among others, faced mockery for actually preferring his young male lover.

Now in Greece things are more complicated, but the broader picture is still one where this was an elite pursuit- specifically a standard elite induction ritual was to enter into a relationship with an older man as a teen. This is documented from both Athens and Sparta, and the elite male practitioners generally deny that the purpose was sexual gratification and claim that penetrative sex with them was taboo- although they engage in a suspiciously large amount of aesthetic appreciation for nude adolescent males. Athens is better documented than Sparta(which in turn is better documented than other city states), and denial of having engaged in sexual acts with one’s mentor as a youth happens with a frequency there that suggests it happened but wasn’t universal.

Additionally, the gender ratios of infanticide victims outside of ancient brothels skews very male(whereas infanticide in the ancient world more generally skewed female due to preference for sons), indicating that the brothel visiting public(which would have been a very large percentage of the population; visiting brothels was the standard unmarried male sexual behavior and not stigmatized) preferred women, not adolescent boys.

In conclusion, the ancient femboy thing looks and probably was an elite signaling game and not rooted in widespread homosexual inclinations. Instead the Greek and Roman elite mostly had sex with women while showing their urbanity and sophistication by talking about wanting to sleep with teenaged boys, who in turn mostly had sex with female prostitutes and not adult men.

More specifically, keeping an adolescent femboy slave was a high status aristocratic thing

It seems that it was common in the top 10% of society. That is a lot of people. If the top 10% of society can be convinced to engage in gay sex then I think we are all rather malleable in this regard.

the Roman elite seemed to think it a little strange to actually prefer screwing him over women.

This is not the case, according to Wikipedia. In fact, the opposite is true, and it was weird to prefer women.

By the end of the Augustan period Ovid, Rome's leading literary figure, was alone among Roman figures in proposing a radically new agenda focused on love between men and women: making love with a woman is more enjoyable, he says, because unlike the forms of same-sex behavior permissible within Roman culture, the pleasure is mutual.

Several other Roman writers, however, expressed a bias in favor of males when sex or companionship with males and females were compared, including Juvenal, Lucian, Strato, and the poet Martial, who often derided women as sexual partners and celebrated the charms of pueri.

Perhaps poets were more gay than other people?

the ancient femboy thing looks and probably was an elite signaling game and not rooted in widespread homosexual inclinations.

If most people in the elite are willing to have sex with boys, then that is surprising and suggests that modern-day signaling could achieve as much.

How do we have accurate records of infanticide? That seems a rather weird place to start when we have lots of literature on the practice of concubines. Sources agree that female prostitution was more common. Perhaps this was because there were fewer other jobs for women. Perhaps the common man was less easily swayed. Who knows.

Additionally, the gender ratios of infanticide victims outside of ancient brothels skews very male(whereas infanticide in the ancient world more generally skewed female due to preference for sons), indicating that the brothel visiting public(which would have been a very large percentage of the population; visiting brothels was the standard unmarried male sexual behavior and not stigmatized) preferred women, not adolescent boys.

What’s the argument here? That prostitutes disproportionately killed their male children because they knew that at least the girls could grow up to become prostitutes? Seems spurious to me.

That the owners of prostitutes disproportionately killed the male children of their enslaved workers because they expected to put the female children to work in just over a decade, but anticipated lower demand for males

This brings up the question of whether the homosexual acts of any given man make that man 'gay' or are just men sticking it in holes, in particular if he is having sexy times with his wife/wives/concubines in addition to his catamite or whoever. One of Paglia's points is that the decadence signalled by a societal preoccupation with non-heterosexual sex (in particular transgenderism) heralds that same society's imminent collapse. All very interesting but Paglia, brilliant as she is in my mind, is still outside her wheelhouse on such matters. Still this speaks to your point about an upper limit.

This brings up the question of whether the homosexual acts of any given man make that man 'gay' or are just men sticking it in holes,

Perhaps I am guilty of having a missing mood, or other people are, but my understanding is that most men in Western society would not enjoy having anal sex with a teen boy. I think gay men are sometimes confused by this, and presume that every one would actually enjoy that, but just have hangups that make them feel guilty about doing it.

I think (some) gay men could better understand this if they compared it to having sex with mature women. I know lots of gay men who would shudder at the thought of that, but might be able to screw a sufficiently thin young girl. Some straight men are not lying about not being turned on, and actually being turned off, by male bodies. That said, the Roman numbers might suggest that this group of straight men is a very small sexual minority.

men sticking it in holes, in particular if he is having sexy times with his wife/wives/concubines in addition to his catamite or whoever.

If you can afford a sex slave, and choose a male one, you might just be a little gay.

Oh I agree. But recall that scene in Portnoy's Complaint about thr kid so horny (for lack of a better term) that he gratified himself with the raw liver he had been sent to collect for the dinner. And I would suggest innumerable couch cushions, discarded socks, and, to use the vulgar term, pocket pussies (I will spare you the oddly mainstream acceptance these have in Japan...and you are free to not click that link) to say nothing of unsuspecting sheep and calves in more farming cultures could all, had they but a voice to cry out with, attest to the lack of self-discipline when it comes to the male sex drive. We won't even discuss smaller, more delicate-looking incarcerated males.

Don't get me wrong. I have never, in memory, had a gay inclination. But it's a crazy world.

I suspect part of homosexual behaviour among men are simply power plays - speaking to your oblique prison rape reference. Is that necessarily an urge born of lust for someone's body... or the desire to degrade them in a show of social domination? The same argument could conceivably be made in terms of the "mentor-youth" relationships in the ancient world. Perhaps it was a way for older men to assert dominance over younger and unruly pupils, or for eager pupils to submit in totality to their masters. Disentangling sex from psychology isn't always straightforward.

Nevertheless, we have more permissive attitudes than ever towards homosexuals in the West and it doesn't appear that most men find it gratifying, given how the overwhelming majority still pursue and bed women. This makes me question claims that homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. Perhaps homosexuals have a tendency to wildly inflate the amount of men who have such inclinations, whether in the past or in the contemporary age.

This makes me question claims that homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome.

I question it too, but the evidence seems pretty strong. In Rome, it was definitely socially normal to have penetrative gay sex with young boys. That suggests that their society was very different from ours and perhaps suggests that we have a lot further we could go in that direction.

So, you think displaying a rainbow flag causes some pct of boys to grow up to get an erection when seeing a naked guy, and to fail to get an erection when seeing a naked woman?

So, you think displaying a rainbow flag causes some pct of boys to grow up to get an election when seeing a naked guy

If that’s what it’s going to take in order to finally introduce the Vote Of No Confidence into the American political tradition, then by God, the young hetero men of this country are just going to have to grin and bear it. Show me as many naked guys as you must if it means we can get this new election started early.

I’m positive that in the formative years where their sexualities and preferences and philias develop (remember it’s not unusual for people to have fetishes they trace to childhood), that these things are causing some percentage of boys to become gay:

  • Having special days where you show only the positive role models of gays, no evil members, and no positive straight members, which artificially increases gay positive valence

  • Having a colorful flag for gays and no colors and no flag for straight people. For children, color = objectively better. Color is an objective “attractive marker”

  • Giving special esteem, attention, and “interesting points” to gays

I note that this is very different from your original claim, which was specifically about the rainbow flag. But regardless, the things you list are going to change what causes them to become sexually aroused, and what doesn't? That seems quite unlikely.

I’m expanding on my comment because you asked a question, and in any case the rainbow flag is a symbol of the whole LGBT enterprise. The question is whether childhood experiences and culture can influence sexuality. There’s evidence that it does:

  • gays are more likely to have been molested in childhood

  • boys like the bachi bazi culture in Afghanistan, who are picked regardless of orientation in childhood, grow up to be gay: According to Khan et al. (2009, p. 24), bacha bereesh appear to predominately “grow up to follow a sexually active pattern as receptive males, self-identifying with their femininity and receptive role” as a “third gender” within a trinary gender system of man/woman/non-man

  • it’s common knowledge that childhood experiences can result in lifelong philias, whether this be the appearance of a mate or a sexual activity

So, IMO, it is established that childhood sexual experiences mold adult orientation. The remaining question is whether reinforcement of sexuality in childhood molds adult orientation. This needs to be studied, but I am positive that it does to some degree, because that makes sense based on what we know about reinforcement.

I’m expanding on my comment because you asked a question

Right. You made a comment specifically about the flag, and I asked a comment about the flag, but you chose to respond about something else.

There is a huge difference between having sexual experiences during childhood, or even having sexuality being reinforced, and seeing displays of gay pride flags.

Right. You made a comment specifically about the flag, and I asked a comment about the flag, but you chose to respond about something else.

There is a huge difference between having sexual experiences during childhood, or even having sexuality being reinforced, and seeing displays of gay pride flags.

Five years ago, before this topic was as heavily discussed in the culture, I took my then-14yo daughter to a concert. Each of the two opening acts and the main act did a "gay" song that involved the waving of rainbow flags, and the 25,000 14 year olds in the arena went apeshit each time. The energy in that place during the rainbow parades was off the chart.

Kids are very susceptible to fads (I myself wore a "Frankie Say Relax" t-shirt in junior high having no idea of its connotations...) and peer pressure. Whether or not the Rainbow flag actually turns kids gay is separate from the idea that this kind of mass celebration reinforces ideas of what is "good," and there probably isn't a wide distance between a kid feeling encouraged to try gay over their innate disgust tendencies, and then forming intimate bonds following experimental gay contact, especially if it's a first sexual experience. If you close your eyes and try real hard to think about how rainbow flags make you special, a mouth is just a mouth, as David Rabe wrote. And maybe there's no looking back after that point.

Whether or not the Rainbow flag actually turns kids gay is separate from the idea that this kind of mass celebration reinforces ideas of what is "good,"

Exactly

a kid feeling encouraged to try gay over their innate disgust tendencies,

I am curious what percentage of kids who have those innate disgust tendencies (aka, straight kids, as opposed to "curious" kids, who by definition are not disgusted) you think "try gay," flags or no.

More comments

a mouth is just a mouth,

Oral sex used to be rarer and more special than vaginal sex, but along came AIDS, and people's attitudes changed. From 1997

"It is incredible how casual oral sex has become for some adolescents," said Dr. Carol Perry, who was a psychologist for 15 years at Riverdale Country School and Trinity School, two private schools in New York City, and who is now in private practice. "With older people, it was something that usually came further along in a relationship, when two people had been comfortable with each other and intimate for a while. But many of the adolescents see it as safer than intercourse, and not as intimate."

Many of those interviewed -- teen-agers and sex educators alike -- say that the casual acceptance of oral sex comes in good part from the media, especially movies like "Pretty Woman," in which Julia Roberts portrayed a prostitute who would perform oral sex with clients, but would not kiss them, because kissing was too intimate.

For girls, 'Do you spit or do you swallow?' is a typical seventh-grade question.

I think this is a good example of how cultural norms about sex can change. In the early 70s, oral sex was very taboo and rarely mentioned outside an example of cruelty justifying divorce. Twenty years later, it was normalized for middle schoolers (in New York, according to the New York Times, YMMV).

Even the Kama Sutra disapproved of it: "this Auparishtaka is the work of a dog and not of a man, because it is a low practice"

Perhaps gay sex will follow the same path.

No, see:

as they have a natural interest in colorful things and unique identity marks that give social reinforcement

Re:

There is a huge difference

But therein lies the rub. It’s not a huge difference at all. It’s a little difference. The difference between being molested by a gay man physically, and being put through a gauntlet of pro-homosexuality propaganda, is not actually different from the standpoint of “how reinforcement works psychologically”. If I watch Alizee’s performance of J’en ai marre as a boy I may become hopelessly infatuated with dancing French brunettes, for no other reason than an association was placed in my mind. This happens all the time: associations predicated on reinforcement.

"hopelessly infatuated" is probably overstating things.

But I'd probably agree with the overall point that it could have a minor effect towards that direction?

  1. Again, I was responding to your specific claim about the flag.

  2. And, yes there is a big difference.

  3. There is also a big difference between a straight kid seeing a hot dance by a brunette woman and developing an attraction to brunettes, and a straight kid seeing an erotic dance by a guy and becoming no longer straight. But of course we are talking about rainbow flags, not erotic dances.

It's pretty obviously true, there's a marginal bisexual boy who if market forces make being gay difficult might just marry a woman and never really think about men that hard; who finds out it's an opportunity be can take and sexual market forces lead him to be mainly gay.

The utilitarian question being, is that percentage more or less than the marginal really really gay guy who marries a woman and they're both miserable due to lack of awareness of alternatives.

Aren’t there something like 2x as many self reported bisexuals as exclusive homosexuals even among those who engage in same sex behavior?

I have no idea, and our general understanding of bisexuality strikes me as primarily misunderstanding sexual market forces.

But that is a claim about behavior. The original claim was about sexual arousal. in your hypothetical, the bisexual boy is bisexual before being exposed to the flag.

I don't think they can entirely be separated. The brain is the largest sex organ. Disgust reactions to many things are taught, as are arousal reactions, and can vary completely based on culture.

I don't think it's the flags, small kids aren't going to know what that is all about. It's the teachers pushing it in school and yes I do mean pushing it. Like this loser.

That seems like a very odd example of anyone pushing anything. It is 15 seconds long, and in it's entirety the guy says, "In school I was bullied for being gay, even by my teachers. So I became a teacher. Guess who my favorite students are [rainbow flag]." I am pretty good at steelmanning, but I am struggling to understand how someone would consider that pushing homosexuality, nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."

nor why anyone would describe him as a "loser."

"Once upon a time, I was discriminated against. I now practice that discrimination against others and am proud to be doing so."

Rejoicing in intentionally being part of the problem rather than part of the solution leads me to believe that person is a substandard human being. It's not much more complex than that.

Where does he say he is discriminating against others?

I don't discriminate against black students, it's just that the white ones are my favorite!

"When I was in school, I was bullied for my conservative beliefs, even by teachers. So I became a teacher, and now conservative students are my favorites." Would you infer that I am a loser who discriminates against liberal students? Or, would you perhaps draw a more charitable inference, such as that I support conservative students, within the bounds of teacher ethics? I am betting the latter. Yet you do not extend that charity to a member of your outgroup.

More comments

That's hardly fair. Being just slightly charitable, what they mean by 'favourite students' fairly clearly does not imply any genuine preferential treatment or discrimination in respect of grades, discipline and so forth.

More comments

To steelman his point, I'd say it would be a lot more like identifying as 'queer', or some other nebulous label that doesn't actually equate to a change in sexuality.

I think perhaps that is stretching steelmanning a bit far. That is not usually what people mean by "becoming gay." Especially those who worry about kids "becoming gay."

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