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 pretty much agree about Blanchard. To the extent I talk about it, it's mostly the mirror image of your objection - I keep hearing how it's discredited, pseudoscientific, and whatnot, while the most I could see in any substantial criticism is that it's incomplete. If incompleteness is the objection from the start, I have no issues with it.
But I still don't see your broader point. I could quibble with your interpretation of the examples you gave - I don't think ROGD was a preexisting fringe theory, rather it's an academic formalization of an already existing idea. When a 12 year old declares they're trans and want to go on hormones, thoughts like "are the friends you're hanging out with putting some goofy ideas in your head?" are the most intuitive and natural to pop into a parents' heads, no one needed Littman for that. In fact, the entire criticism of her study boils down to her recruiting from mommy forums where these conversations where already taking place, thus biasing her sample.
I could also question the idea that what you're describing is descriptive only / mostly of people rejecting authority. In my opinion the mainstream authorities also rely on fringe theories as a schelling point in exactly the way you described. You might protest that how can a theory be both fringe and endorsed by mainstream authorities? To which I'd point out that the majority of the world still thinks the whole "gender identity" theory is academic gobbledygook, and a basic question about definitions, even from a meathead like Matt Walsh, can reduce said mainstream authorities to a blubbering mess.
But more importantly I don't see the point of your argument at all. What are the consequences on the conversation if you're correct vs. if you're wrong? I don't see what relevant conclusion I can draw in either case, but maybe I'm missing something.
More options
Context Copy link