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 must say I find more telling the way you feel the need to refute a strawman than the content of the argument.
I mean look at your response.
One is a "yes, but you're not thinking of it for the right reasons". Given mindreading is void of content, this reduces to yes.
Two is weirdly overlooking how the US spent large amounts of ressources trying to convince Afghans to adopt Californian morality, gay acceptance very much included. Which was never going to work and made any collaboration a purely mercenary affair that collapsed as fast as you would expect. I could go on about this and how the Americans suck at imperialism compared to the Brits (and weirdly failed in Afghanistan for very similar reasons).
Three is certainly dubious, unless you fix the strawman and change gay marriage for "cede more terrain to progressive politics" and then it's unambiguous that the insane zeal for Ukraine as the new current thing is not coming from nowhere. But strictly speaking it hasn't happened and wouldn't happen because of that.
Four is the really outrageous one, since the strawman formulation, despite being a very strong claim to make, is literally true and accurate, and all you find to spin it is "yes but some people still oppose it" which frankly is ridiculous.
Overall, for something literally created to deform and discredit conservative arguments, I think that's a impressively good score. I wouldn't start betting money on reverse-progressive-memes, but it certainly bolsters the thesis that the conservatives of yore were at least directionnally accurate.
How much did they spend? I don't think the Americans ever tried to make Afghanistan into a progressive utopia. They just wanted a more-or-less stable country with a more-or-less functional government that didn't host terrorists.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – that's the US-backed government, not the Taliban – had a constitution stating that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam". I don't recall the US ever asking them even to make a secular constitution, let alone legalize same-sex marriage.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, now I feel bad. My initial reply was dishonest, in that I did not accurately represent my thoughts on the matter. I attempted to construct a maximally charitable interpretation, as well as blindly accept almost-certainly-false factual claims. I wanted the comment to be "fun". In light of your reply---certainly not in the same spirit!---I regret this. Let me attempt to rectify the mistake, being both more honest and more literal:
The first is plainly false. There have not been plagues; there's been a plague (involving no frogs or locusts!). The transmission of that plague (COVID) is not facilitated by anything related to gay marriage. There's been one other disease, of minor import, whose origins lie before the introduction of gay marriage, and in a continent that contains exactly one country to have legalized same-sex marriage (out of 54). The effects of this disease have been minimal in the U.S.; it less qualifies as a "plague" than the common cold. (That was the point of my comment that you asserted was "mind-reading", by the way: that monkeypox is not actually a thing to deserve the name "plague", it only seems that way because the media is going through some sort of perverse "pandemic withdrawal". Thanks for that particularly uncharitable interpretation.)
The second is likewise absurd. Gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. several years after it became obvious that American ventures in the middle east were an enormous, largely unnecessary, resource sink. "Terrorist victories caused gay marriage" is more likely to be a defensible position here.
The third... shit, I already used the word "absurd". Let's go with "risible" this time around. WWIII hasn't happened. The zeal for Ukraine is shared by many countries that don't share the U.S.'s laws on same-sex relationships. For instance, Ukraine. Less glibly, say, Italy. Moreover, the assertion of a general pattern "left wins -> left becomes more active" (relevant both here and for the next point) is probably untrue. The greatest expression of leftist zeal in recent times came after a loss (2016), not a win.
The fourth is just an obvious M&B (which makes it the best claim so far!). The motte is "we managed to find O(1) instances of teachers doing bad things" (at least one of whom got sent to jail for it). The bailey is "this is happening at a large fraction of schools". This particular M&B is enabled by the standard linguistic ambiguity in sentences of the form "[broad class of things without quantifier] [predicate]". This isn't even an interesting M&B.
The best that can be said about these arguments is that, among the obviously untrue claims, they contain claims that are less obviously untrue, and even occasionally claims that have not yet been decisively proven untrue.
Look, none of this is surprising or interesting. An absurd strawman argument turned out to be low-quality: who could have guessed! As you hinted, nothing said here could affect an underlying debate over the consequences of legalizing SSM. But suggesting, for rhetorical effect, that "even the strawman was right", isn't going to lead to truth unless there's a non-deranged argument that the strawman was actually right. At best, you have to abandon the claim in a hurry when called on it; more often, you end up doing what you just did, and attempting to defend claims like "gay marriage caused WWIII".
I kinda want to dig on (4) because I think your view of the situation is not accurate and the promotion of promiscuity and alternative sexual identities isn't at all dog bites man but very much institutional.
But I'll agree with you that this whole frame is a waste of our time unless we go back to discussing actual non broken arguments instead of evaluating how terrible they have to be and still be accurate to be meaningful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link