site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   31472 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 7, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This has been out there for months without gathering any attention outside of fringe right wing press like The Economist. It's been labeled a conspiracy to be ignored and sneered at, as it will be here. You don't have the power to confront them with it, so they can just pretend it's not happening until it's time to say "and it's good!"

Unsurprisingly, kiwifarms has all the deets and complete archives of their "research," which decisively answer all the deflection being done in this thread.

It is the first I'm hearing about it as someone quite online, I think it's worth bringing up.

It's really amazing how flaccid the response was, isn't it? You'd think people would be screaming it from the rooftops, but it's like everyone's too demoralized to protest even the most deranged things being done to their children any more.

The most common response I saw on Twitter was saying "well, obviously this was the next step. We all saw it coming, but what's changed to make anyone listen this time?"

We (as in society, because I sure as hell haven't) accepted that sex was a private matter and what people did in the privacy of their bedrooms, or their imaginations, was no business of anyone else and certainly not the government.

We accepted that any and every sexual orientation was as legitimate and normal as default cis-heteronormativity.

We accepted that kink-shaming was bad, and fetishes were healthy expressions and explorations of sexuality.

We accepted that trans was real woman/real man and anyone who thought otherwise was a transphobe who probably engaged in the worst sin of sins, misgendering and deadnaming.

We accepted that kids could be and were sexual beings too, so contraception and abortion where necessary.

We accepted that kids could make informed decisions, just like adults, about their sexual orientation and gender identity.

We accepted that only religious zealots, bigots, haters, and slavering right-wing fascists objected to any of the above, and wanted to put limits on it because they hate women and minorities and want to control them.

So yeah, eunuch-identity as one more letter for the LGBTQ2+/LGBTQIA+ acronym is just the next step. There will probably be a new flag for them for next Pride. And yeah, eunuch-identity for trans kids, because what are you, some kind of hater? Don't you know about the 41%?

Not exactly an original notion, but I'm always amazed at the power of the label "conspiracy theory" and the ineffectiveness of responding, "yes, this is a theory about a conspiracy".

Calm down, it is not conspiracy when everything is in the open.

Yeah, I know it's old news, but I don't remember anyone bringing it up here. And if someone wants to call it a conspiracy theory, I'm very interested in their reasoning.

I think the only way you'll even get that response is by posting this as a direct reply. Otherwise it's just the usual tactic of "ignore, except to subtweet about the stench of evil right wing bare links posts getting worse"

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