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 -
Before we answer the question of "why", can we confirm that this is in fact the case? I still see people parroting lies like "puberty blockers are reversible" or "you have to go through a long and bureaucratic process to transition", for example. I've never seen anyone being excommunicated for lies on the trans topic, so I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Those who maintain those things are somewhat excommunicated imo.
How did you get that impression? As far as I can tell everybody involved has cosy prestigious positions.
Also on the topic of milking lies see the recent thread on the mass graves in Canadian boarding schools and the comment about a gay hatecrime hoax that apparently reached legendary status.
All sorts of highly-regarded people love milking lies, so I don't see a good reason to single Trump out.
Well no doubt there are others in the world who can be grouped in with Trump as shameless lie milkers, but his prominence coupled with his attitude to the truth is why I'd single Trump out.
Anyway, it depends who we are talking about. If it's someone who properly caveats a statement like 'Puberty blockers are reversible', then that sentence could be part of a full and true accounting. If it's someone who implies 'Puberty blockers are reversible, period, and there's nothing more to say about them', then I think that person will find their status and ability to ascend certain social ladders quietly reduced.
Re: the gay hate crime 'hoax', one of Matthew Shepard's killers' legal defences was that he did it in a moment of gay panic. Now there is fog around the case, but I have not (so far) seen enough to justify the term 'hoax'. Some people want the story to be a certain way, that much is true.
My point us that I don't see his attitude as qualitatively different as that of others, even people who are actually in position of public trust (unlike politicians, who are assumed to be lying to get into office as a matter off course).
The way it works is that they are contrasted with hormones, which are deemed irreversible, and sold as a way to give someone time to think. I see no way to describe them as "reversible" in a way that hormones are not.
Can you give an example?
If there is no evidence indicating an event happened that certain way, isn't that a hoax?
They are reversible in that puberty resumes after you stop taking them. Whether it's just the same as the puberty you'd have experienced is a good question. Whether the possible side effects while you are taking them could have permanent repercussions is another – if so then it can be argued they are not reversible. But I guess I don't think 'reversible' is inherently misleading because it distinguishes them from some hypothetical puberty blocker which blocks puberty permanently.
The NHS in the UK took 'reversible' off their communications following the Cass Report though, and broadcasters became more circumspect. (That'd be an example of people modulating their claims in order to stay elite.)
Well from what I have read (which is by no means everything) there is some evidence – namely that the killer confessed – and the facts of the case continue to be disputed.
Yeah, and hormone levels go back to normal if you stop HRT, but no one is trying to sell that as "reversible".
Meanwhile, in the US, it is a matter of public record that the organization writing standards for transgender care didn't want to do an evidence based review, specifically because it would show there's no evidence, and that they are sitting on 2 unpublished systemic reviews that they have commissioned themselves. To my knowledge everybody still has their cushy prestigious jobs as doctors, high level officials, etc.
How do "broadcasters" enter the picture? If "broadcasters" can modulate the original lie, than just look at what they're saying about Trump all the time.
To the murder or to the hatecrime?
Specifically to the hate crime. (Or to be more precise, he pled guilty to killing Shepard having been driven to temporary insanity by a fit of gay panic after Shepard came onto him.)
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link