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'm even willing to use whatever pronouns you prefer, even if that means changing them from time to time

This is a level of permissiveness that I cannot fathom. If someone asked you to address them differently depending on their mood, would you? Like if they were in a good mood they want to be called Jonathan Sunshine, but if they're feeling a bit down it's Gloomraven, Lord of all Sorrows? Because I don't really see how it's any different.

He and She are words already in my lexicon, as is they - they're not particularly loaded down with baggage in the same way that Gloomraven is.

In that case do you also refuse to memorise the name of anyone you meet whose name is unusual, uncommon or otherwise unheard of to you?

I think it's different for the reason that switching from "he" to "she" does not discommode me much, while switching from "Jonathan Sunshine" to "Gloomraven, Lord of All Sorrows" would be ridiculous and asinine and is fortunately something that only happens in ridiculous and asinine straw man what ifs.

I'll note that even the first example is hypothetical, since I don't actually know any people who change their pronouns on a recurring basis.

Obviously there is a limit to my tolerance. I don't respect neo-pronouns like "xe" or "xir," and I have yet to be forced to use "they" as a singular third-person pronoun in person. (That one offends me more on grammatical grounds than any feelings I have about gender identities.)

If someone were actually changing their pronouns on a daily basis, I would stop trying to keep track and tell them they're being unreasonable to expect me to.

while switching from "Jonathan Sunshine" to "Gloomraven, Lord of All Sorrows" would be ridiculous and asinine and is fortunately something that only happens in ridiculous and asinine straw man what ifs.

Is it though? There's certainly someone on discord or twitter whose moniker is 'Gloomraven', and people have no trouble calling them by that.

Changing pronouns has been ridiculous and asinine in practically all cultures through all of time. It is still ridiculously asinine in most places in the world today.

We are already down that slope, down so far that "Gloomraven Lord of the Sorrows" is closer to whay we have now than not having that.

This battle was lost the moment changing pronouns more than once was "normalized". It should have been something that you choose and have to commit to else pay a great price to your credibility.

I don't want to comment on the neo-pronouns, but I have a question about this bit:

That one offends me more on grammatical grounds than any feelings I have about gender identities.

The singular they goes back to at least the 1300s, at least according to Merriam-Webster. What kind of pedigree are you looking for in your english words above and beyond a word usage that literally predates modern english? Is it just that the same word can refer to singular and plural? Does the word "deer" bother you in the same way?

The singular they goes back to at least the 1300s, at least according to Merriam-Webster. What kind of pedigree are you looking for in your english words above and beyond a word usage that literally predates modern english? Is it just that the same word can refer to singular and plural? Does the word "deer" bother you in the same way?

Trust me, I am familiar with the linguistic history of "they" and with this argument.

The problem with it is that in the past, "they" has been used (somewhat inconsistently) as an indefinite gender pronoun (such as when the gender of the person being referred to is unknown, or when you are talking about a generic person of either gender). And even in those cases, it sometimes leads to grammatical ambiguity.

The new usage, where it's used to refer to individuals even when their gender is known (see what I did there?) is both awkward and frequently unclear.

"They're waiting for me in the car."

"I called my friend and they were very upset."

"They told me I misgendered them."

It's becoming more common for me to be reading an article where people use a singular "they" and I have to backtrack to figure out if we're talking about one person or multiple people. I would almost prefer that we actually adopt some neopronoun like "xe/xir" just to disambiguate the grammar, but since I don't recognize that "xe/xirs" exist, I just mentally roll my eyes at people who identify as a singular-they.

The new usage, where it's used to refer to individuals even when their gender is known (see what I did there?) is both awkward and frequently unclear.

Could you expand a little on this? I'm not sure how, once you've accepted the singular they for a person of unknown gender or perhaps an abstract person without gender, applying it to different individuals causes more ambiguity.

Or is it just that this previously rage edge-case is becoming more common which is leading to problems?

I thought my examples above gave pretty good examples of the problem. What's still unclear?

I think the issue is that I'm still unsure of your position on the singular they for use with a person of unknown gender (old definition).

Specifically the paragraph that starts with:

The problem with it is that in the past...

"it" here seems to imply the new definition, otherwise contrasting with the past is odd (or I'm just parsing something wrong, always an option). I interpreted this as the old definition was fine (if not ideal), and the new version was a problem.

But later there's talk about ambiguity, and as far as I can tell, both definitions do that to roughly the same degree, so I'm not sure why contrasting the old and new definitions comes up beforehand.

I think the issue is that I'm still unsure of your position on the singular they for use with a person of unknown gender (old definition).

Between:

"A person should always look both ways before they cross the street."

and

"A person should always look both ways before he or she crosses the street."

I prefer:

"A person should always look both ways before crossing the street."

In other words, a third person singular "they" may be acceptable according Webster's and historical precedent, but it's still ambiguous and there are usually better grammatical constructs you can use to avoid it.

The historical claim to a "singular they" is a central example of a motte and bailey. There was the occasional usage of singular they to refer to a person of unknown or unspecified sex, where "he" would be more grammatically standard--this is the motte. Referring to a known and identified singular person as "they" was not a thing.

Did you think no one would actually click your link? Because Merriam-Webster lays out exactly what I said above, though with more sneering.

It was not immediately clear that the new definition was the point of contention. People railing against the "singular they" is much older than the current gender debate (including my 8th grade english teacher), and the OP specified that it was more on grammatical grounds than gender.

I think it's different for the reason that switching from "he" to "she" does not discommode me much, while switching from "Jonathan Sunshine" to "Gloomraven, Lord of All Sorrows" would be ridiculous and asinine and is fortunately something that only happens in ridiculous and asinine straw man what ifs.

Back in the ancient days of AOL and Ryhddin chatrooms, i once met a teenaged boy IRL who wanted to be called Angel when he was in a good mood and Angelus when he was in a dangerous mood.

I'm honestly not sure how valid the connection is, but it feels easy to intuit a line from the warlocks and druids I played Vampire the Masquerade with 20 years ago to the otherkin and therianopes of the early teens to the gender creatives of the last five years.

Back in the ancient days of AOL and Ryhddin chatrooms, i once met a teenaged boy IRL who wanted to be called Angel when he was in a good mood and Angelus when he was in a dangerous mood.

I've known my share of Internet crazies too, and people who wanted to adopt new names for various reasons. The degree to which you're willing to humor an edgy teen is up to your own tolerance level. The degree to which you're willing to humor an adult who identifies "differently" is also up to your own tolerance level. I will be polite to trans people and "non-binaries." I'd be polite to an otherkin too, but I wouldn't call him Lupus Bloodmoon Rayvnfang or pretend that I believe he's a wolf.

(I don't pretend I believe transwomen are women either, but unless they want to press me and force a conversation about it, neither do I feel obligated to tell transwomen what I actually think any more than as an atheist I need to go off on someone who says "God bless you" when I sneeze.)

I don't pretend I believe transwomen are women either,

Do you believe in following requests to treat them as women such as being in women's bathrooms or locker rooms, on women's sports teams, in women's prisons, in women's shelters, etc.?

I think transwomen should be allowed to use women's bathrooms, but sports teams, no, and women's prisons, only if they have physically transitioned. Locker rooms and shelters I would say situationally dependent, particularly on whether or not the person has physically transitioned. I know the gotcha you're looking for here is the bad faith actors who just want to go in and flash their girldicks around, and the fact that the trans movement is reluctant to acknowledge the existence of bad actors is the petard they are hoisting themselves on.

But does it count as a petard if it doesn't identify as a petard?

Yes, obvious joke, but there's also a point--what are the consequences of not acknowledging the existence of bad actors, and who can and will enforce the consequences?

There was a bit of earlier discussion about kids pushing boundaries, and how that's normal, but it's the job of adults to set boundaries. I fully agree, but this is yet another case of those with the power to set boundaries refusing to do so. That petard ain't gonna set itself.

Yes, obvious joke, but there's also a point--what are the consequences of not acknowledging the existence of bad actors, and who can and will enforce the consequences?

For trans people, probably a lot of people who assume they are all bad faith actors and thus make it harder for the sincere ones to live their lives in peace.

If a good friend asked this of me in an apologetic way, emphasizing that they wouldn't ask if it wasn't important, sure, I'd call them whatever they want.

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