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 -
My parents were/are liberals/progressives. I was raised that the most important part of that was freedom of speech; that "We on the left do not blacklist" (the implication behind that statement, the specter of McCarthyism, was felt to go without saying).
OTOH, my grandparents were Rockefeller Republicans who referred to FDR as "that man in the White House."
As for me, I "turned FDR's picture to the wall" in 2016, and I was literally (for the literal meaning of literally) shaking when I did so. (Suggested that vote to my husband too, but who knows if he did it of course, ballots are and should remain secret.)
So hey I followed my family's tradition of switching "sides" I guess? :D
But also: You can see why.
In my (sub)culture, "the culture of freedom of speech" includes the idea that it's every citizen's right and duty to express their sincere opinion so that the marketplace of ideas can include it. "We" (as a society and polity) can't do our best if we aren't aware of all possible perspectives and ideas! (So I agree with the OP there, and I'm glad to see yo uinspired by the same sentiment.) Similarly, in my subculture it's every citizen's right and duty to improve on ("steelman") ideas they find in said marketplace, if they see ways to do so. It's also every citizen's right and duty to meet argument with argument rather than silencing tactic, because if you allow silencing tactics (or other "debaters' tricks" for that matter) then the marketplace of ideas no longer selects for truth. After all, in "the culture of freedom of speech" (inherited from the British Parliament, after all), the point of freedom of speech is to have an effective marketplace of ideas to guide the government. It's just that in the USA the government is [supposed to be] the people (rather than the monarch).
But also I react to the OP with, "Where have you been? It's already expensive to dangerous." I was first defenestrated 15 years ago (in what in retrospect was an aftershock of Racefail '09). Lost my online home, had people threatening to track me down and physically attack me, no one did and I can never know if my opsec was good enough or if they just didn't try very hard...that time. More recently, people have been arrested for defending their homes from riots. (The process should not be the punishment, but these days, it is.)
But also
Well, now I have offspring. And many of both my family and my in-laws tend toward the "socially awkward nerd" type. So any daughter of ours would seem to have especial vulnerability to ROGD, based on how those who seem to have experienced it tend to describe it. A relative of mine married someone whose kids from their first marriage included a natal female who seems to have fit the ROGD profile and who no longer speaks with them. Another relative seemed to flirt with ROGD for a while before returning to a more liberal-feminist, "Why are there so few girls in [insert one of her interests here]?" perspective. (Must ask her parents how they did it! :/) And another married someone who later appeared to fit the AGP profile (complete with military background), and who, when their wife died, transitioned and abandoned their minor children. (I came along on a visit to them once. They spent most of the visit droning on about their many different guns.) So yeah right now actually...well, it's something I'd have to think about.
Still, I don't expect to ever give up my culturally ingrained support for freedom of speech, so I'm happy to make common cause with whoever else supports freedom of speech, regardless of our object-level political positions. Hi there comrade! :)
But I wonder about the viability of this movement. I mean, that's what "we" used to be. "We" got defeated by "the woke movement" so...how will "Reform Progressivism" be different?
The thing, here, is that I disagree with the framing that being trans is undesirable (in an ideal environment, anyway; obviously, in a right-wing dystopia where it gets you fired from your job and alienates you from your prejudiced family, it's less likely to come out net-positive on life satisfaction).
For most trans people I know, transitioning has been a joyous and fulfilling experience. Actual trans subreddits, Discord servers, etc. are full of trans people actively delighting in their transness, not dens of wallowing and self-pity. I think the over-medicalization of what is at heart a lifestyle choice has done the whole thing a great disservice; in my book the "oh woe, gender dysphoria is soo bad, you have to let people transition" thing was another one of those well-intended white lies from 'my side' that I cannot abide, because what they've done is muddled what should be a moral slam-dunk to anyone truly concerned with liberty by trying to hitch it to a murky question of fact. I support people's right to transition whether or not they have such a thing as medically-defined "gender dysphoria". It's not a medical question, it's a moral question about autonomy, about freedom and self-determination. I support trans people in exactly the same way that I support people's right to have plastic surgery or change their name or dye their hair or dress up as anthropomorphic dogs - and for the same reason that I will support people's rights to become all kinds of cyborgs if that sort of technology ever becomes something more than one of Elon's pies-in-the-sky.
Now, with that cleared up… I don't want to come across as if I'm totally unsympathetic to parental concerns in those cases. Of course it would hurt for your child to reject the name you gave them. I understand that. But moody teenagers, and indeed grown adults, have gone "oh my god, mom, stooop, everyone at school calls me Jay, 'Jeremiah' sucks" since the dawn of time. It didn't use to tear families apart. And sure, if your kid were to be the kind of trans who wants actual surgery and not just a change of wardrobe (remember, that's by no means everyone!), you can be concerned about the mild but real risk of health complication. But again… kids get into dangerous hobbies their parents are queasy about all the time. In my view, you shouldn't be more concerned about a daughter of yours wanting top surgery than about a child of either gender getting really into biking, or rock-climbing, or, really, any high-level competitive sport. Call me when there's a moral panic about high school football.
(Whether young children are competent to make such a big lifestyle choice is a whole other discussion, but has no bearing on whether it's okay to let them experiment with a cross-gender name if they want. We don't let nine-year-olds get into cave-diving, and by my own analogy it's sensible to heavily frown on underage gender surgery; but that's no reason to bar them from dressing up in a cool plastic helmet and exploring dark corners of the playground with a flashlight.)
The practical argument is that, as Nelson outlined in the OP, there are a lot more sincere progressives than cancel-happy sadists. All pro-free-speech conservatives + all pro-free-speech progressives = winning coalition. My hope is that it's just one of Scott's coordination problems, and Reform Progressivism only needs to achieve escape velocity to win the teeming masses over from the witch-hunters.
The more idealistic argument is that, you know, I think I'm right. I think I am putting forward the banner of "good ends, achieved via good means"; and I am optimistic enough about human nature to hope that, so long as the idea gets out there at all, this will be naturally attractive to people who had hitherto had no choice but "good ends, achieved via evil means" or "evil ends, achieved via whatever means". (No offense.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link