site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   30015 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 21, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For reasons I don't understand, sexuality seems far less susceptible to social contagion than gender identity. Sure, the proportion of Gen Zs identifying as "bisexual" or "queer" has skyrocketed, but this hasn't translated into elevated levels of same-sex sexual activity in that generation. If anything the opposite is true and Gen Z are the most sexless generation probably ever. Hence, Dem staffers and activists can promote homosexuality to their heart's content without fear of the leopards biting their face.

And even beyond that, I genuinely believe that the median Democrat would be far more chill with having a gay son or lesbian daughter than a thot daughter trans child.

For reasons I don't understand, sexuality seems far less susceptible to social contagion than gender identity. Sure, the proportion of Gen Zs identifying as "bisexual" or "queer" has skyrocketed, but hasn't translated into elevated levels of same-sex sexual activity in that generation.

I can't do the math now, but you could probably say the same about "gender identity". It only appears otherwise because we're comparing different things.

"Gender identity" is to "medical transition" what "identifying as 'queer" is to actual homosexuality.

Plenty of people can get a buzz cut or change names without actually going through with the procedure. Meanwhile, unlike gay sex, even a small amount of people in absolute terms getting "medical treatments" can set off alarm bells in sensible organizations if the rise is high in percent terms. Which is what happened in Europe.

I know what you mean, but there's two different things going on here.

Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as something other than heterosexual has shot up. But the proportion of young people actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity has plummeted (as part of a secular trend towards sexlessness which is also visible in trends in opposite-sex sexual behaviour in that generation). This is a negative correlation (and not causally linked: the increase in sexlessness is largely caused by technology, social atomisation, smaller family sizes and so on; the increase in LGB identification is driven by fashion and social contagion).

Over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people identifying as transgender (or related terms like non-binary) has shot up. The proportion of young people pursuing medical transition has also increased dramatically. Not at the same rate, of course: only a minority of people identifying as trans will even take hormones, never mind undergo surgery. But the two trends are positively correlated.

Part of the issue is that it happens so young that it raises serious consent problems. I saw a video of a mom taking her crying 9 year old son to get a puberty blocking implant from Dr. Olson-Kennedy. If the boy were going to have a gay tryst at 9 years old, while his mom got him ready for the date, that would set off every alarm bell.

And even beyond that, I genuinely believe that the median Democrat would be far more chill with having a gay son or lesbian daughter than a thot daughter trans child.

I've got an infant daughter right now and I'd much much prefer that she came out as a lesbian than transitioned. One's a lifetime of medical procedures and massively heightened suicide rate, plus has far more issues around reversability if it turns out to just be a phase.

I guess a young woman who identifies as queer or bisexual doesn't have to actually do anything. She doesn't even have to dress any differently. All she does is collect a cool new identity label that her peers will praise her for. Combine that with the fact that most women are a little bisexual anyway (but usually don't act on it) and I can see why these labels are popular. For a young man, it's similarly easy to pick up one of the many bespoke identity labels and not actually change anything about his behaviour or even dress.

By contrast, actually acting on a minority sexuality actually requires them to, you know, act. For straight men (of whom I think most are instinctively repulsed by the idea of sex with a man) this isn't going to happen. And for bi-curious women, this requires her to either take the initiative (which women hate) or wait on a lesbian to come and try to convert her (many such cases, but I doubt there are enough lesbians to make a difference in the stats).

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