site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   28512 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 2024

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.

Haven't checked recently, but I've seen different figures - either similar, or less.

I suspect reports that it's substantially less than the average are underreporting, while reports that it's around the average are probably more accurate. I'd wager it's 2x the baseline or less. I don't believe the reports of a "trans genocide" in terms of literal murders. Arguing that prohibition of medical services constitutes a major psychological risk factor would be the more fruitful line of inquiry if someone were trying to put together a case.

This is the motte-and-bailey that is "trans genocide". They want us to think that the genocide is transphobes murdering trans people, and are able to point to a non-zero number of murders which fit that pattern. But the actual motte is that failing to give trans people everything they want is genociding them by driving them to suicide.

But the actual motte is that failing to give trans people everything they want is genociding them by driving them to suicide.

My impression was that the genocide claim is mostly based on the argument that not affirming trans people's gender is supposedly denying their existence, which in some way is equivalent to wanting them dead, or whatever.

Last I checked these things counted as killing trans, kids or otherwise:

  • anything making kids sad because it made them think about suicide
  • no access to puberty blockers from 10 onwards, because growing into an adolescent natal body kills the trans kid within
  • denying trannies access to protected spaces, because it serves as a visible reminder of their existence being invalidated
  • any language/literature saying natal women/men are in any way different from their trans equivalent, like actual measurements of muscle output post estrogen/test
  • any language implying the existence of female/male coded biology, like cervix or breastfeeding or prostate cancer.

I am 100% sure I missed more examples of this absurdity, but there is no need to belabor the point.

Honestly after a certain point I get the sense that the trannies just want to turn the screws on the cis to put cis in their place. Trannies don't actually want to be weightlifters or cyclists save for the ego stokers, trannies just want to fuck women who can't say no. The visible threat is obviously AGP transwomen acting disingenuously, but the expansive language has captured a shitload of confused angry teen girls convinced their lives would be better if they were boys. Normie PMC bullied into supporting an extensive definition of trans mental health causes for the benefit of degenerate transwomen end up generating a corpus of stupid teenagers getting permanent damage to their bodies and psyches. More and more kids seem to be aware of this discrepancy and revealed preferences point to where the kids really are going - everyone is fucking instathots or smoothskinned gymchads, and no amount of stunning and brave laudatory praise on ugly fatties or short butches is actually giving egotistical fetishists the validation they demand.

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