site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33222 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am not sure how fancy "gender" is in comparison to the obvious alternative, "gender norms." I really don't understand what the objection is. People who study this stuff use a particular term. So what? Why does that matter?

This is like left wingers who get all bent out of shape about corporate personhood, and as a result write [pointless, irrelevant articles]{https://theprogressivecynic.com/2013/06/23/if-corporations-are-people-they-are-sociopaths/) because they don't understand that the term "person" has a specific legal meaning which .

I am not sure how fancy "gender" is in comparison to the obvious alternative, "gender norms." I really don't understand what the objection is. People who study this stuff use a particular term. So what? Why does that matter?

It matters a great deal because they are coopting a preexitsing term with preexisting definitions and using it to achieve their preferred outcome. The words are charged with previous connotations, that are inseparable in most people's minds, and as such can have sway on the public. This is, like, the core argument of Scott's brilliant essay Social Justice and Words Words Words which largely popularized the term "Motte and Bailey" from which this forum itself derives its name.

The paper was critiquing post-modernism, an area I don’t know enough about to determine whether or not their critique was fair. It complained that post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”. There’s an uncontroversial meaning here – we don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society. For example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay. Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas a great big nuclear furnace. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.

The writers of the paper compare this to a form of medieval castle, where there would be a field of desirable and economically productive land called a bailey, and a big ugly tower in the middle called the motte. If you were a medieval lord, you would do most of your economic activity in the bailey and get rich. If an enemy approached, you would retreat to the motte and rain down arrows on the enemy until they gave up and went away. Then you would go back to the bailey, which is the place you wanted to be all along.

By this metaphor, statements like “God is an extremely powerful supernatural being who punishes my enemies” or “The Sky Ox theory and the nuclear furnace theory are equally legitimate” or “Men should not be allowed to participate in discussions about gender” are the bailey – not defensible at all, but if you can manage to hold them you’ve got it made.

Statements like “God is just the order and love in the universe” and “No one perceives reality perfectly directly” and “Men should not interject into safe spaces for women” are the motte – extremely defensible, but useless.

As long as nobody’s challenging you, you spend time in the bailey reaping the rewards of occupying such useful territory. As soon as someone challenges you, you retreat to the impregnable motte and glare at them until they get annoyed and go away. Then you go back to the bailey.

Huh? It was RococoBasilica and you claiming we need the term to talk about social roles, how is saying "not really" getting bent out of shape? If anything, isn't it people who try to get others fired for "misgendering" who are getting bent out of shape?

I was responding to a very specific question, which was why not use the generic term "social norms." My answer was that there are many types of social norms, and the term refers to a specific one. Not sure what that has to do with misgendering. I can believe that 1) gender norms exist; 2) therefore, we need a term to distinguish them from other classes of norms; 3) the term "gender" is reasonable term to use to refer to those norms, even if it is not the one I would have chosen; and 4) left discourse around misgendering is submoronic

Unfortunately re 4 I think you are in a minority on the Anglosphere left. I wish it was otherwise!

My answer was that there are many types of social norms, and the term refers to a specific one

And my answer to that is that doesn't seem to bother us when talking about any other type of social norm, so why should it bother us when talking about social norms imposed on men and women? How is that "getting bent out of shape"?

Not sure what that has to do with misgendering.

I think the term "gender", rather than serving a clarifying role, conflates a whole bunch of things. For example "gender" is also supposed to be some sort of internal feeling, and "misgendering" is some sort of transgression related to that internal feeling. Maybe you don't think that's how the term should be used, but it is.

  1. therefore, we need a term to distinguish them from other classes of norms;

Why? We don't really have so many words for those other classes, why do we need one here?

There are indeed terms for those other classes of norms; they just are not in general discourse because they don't relate to current political issues.

As for whether gender is clarifying, "gender" is not used to refer to a sort of internal feeling. The term for that is "gender identity" (just as there are terms like "ethnic identity" and "sexual identity" )

There are indeed terms for those other classes of norms; they just are not in general discourse because they don't relate to current political issues.

Since the term "gender" doesn't even exist in a lot of languages, I'm a bit skeptical of all these terms for all these other classes existing. Do you have an example in mind?

As for whether gender is clarifying, "gender" is not used to refer to a sort of internal feeling. The term for that is "gender identity" (just as there are terms like "ethnic identity" and "sexual identity" )

Are you sure you're not sane-washing? I mentioned this in another comment, the whole thing reminds me of "neoliberal". Every time I point out that it's vague and conflates a bunch of things, someone shows up to assure me it just means free trade, deregulation, and privatization, all the academic articles using the word in a lot more expansive ways be damned.

Since the term "gender" doesn't even exist in a lot of languages, I'm a bit skeptical of all these terms for all these other classes existing. Do you have an example in mind?

I don't know what you mean when you say that the term "gender" doesn't exist in a lot of languages.

Are you sure you're not sane-washing?

Here is the definition of "gender" from the Open Education Sociology Dictionary:"

(noun) The attitudes, behaviors, norms, and roles that a society or culture associates with an individual’s sex, thus the social differences between female and male; the meanings attached to being feminine or masculine.

Here is that dictionary's definition of "gender identity":

(noun) An individual’s self-perception of their gender.

So, as i said, "'gender' is not used to refer to a sort of internal feeling. The term for that is 'gender identity'"

I don't know what you mean when you say that the term "gender" doesn't exist in a lot of languages.

I don't know how else describe it. There is no equivalent word, and people often resort to simply taking "gender" from English.

So, as i said, "'gender' is not used to refer to a sort of internal feeling. The term for that is 'gender identity'"

How does that prove this is not sane-washing? Are you saying I won't be able to find academic papers using "gender" in a more expansive way?

I don't get why that matters. The societies which use those languages presumably have norms, etc, re each sex. Why does it matter what word is used to describe that phenomenon. There are many loan words from English in other languages. Eg: "genocide."

I have no idea whether there is some idiot in the humanities who has used the term incorrectly. I am saying what the standard definitions are. See also those from the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood and the WHO and the Mayo Clinic and Merriam-Webster

More comments

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