site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33248 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

trans women

Can I call them trans men, because they're actually men and nothing can or will ever change that?

Can I refuse to hire them because they're weird and gross and frankly, mostly, perverts, and I don't want to sort through for one of the good ones? Can I fire them when they want to transition for the same reasons?

Did you even notice the assumption you smuggled in?

This is not some weird abstract ambivalence between left and right, it is a genuine solid third view

Your 'third view' is nothing of the sort, it's just stopping the insane train one stop earlier. It's a ratchet, and you want to stop turning the ratchet, but can't possibly stand the idea of turning it back the other way. Classical liberals would not have passed the CRA, and classical liberals would not be forcing me to both have health insurance and forcing that same health insurance to cover boob jobs for pervert men on the basis of some phony-baloney 'mental health.'

MTF and FTM would leave no ambiguity.

Can I call them trans men, because they're actually men and nothing can or will ever change that?

Nobody will understand what you're talking about. 'Trans men' is a word that already exists and people will understand you to be referring to mentally ill women pretending to be not-women. Words have meanings even if their etymology is stupid.

Trans men are women who identify as male: the opposite of trans women.

The term you are looking for is "trans-identified male." Trans people consider "TIM" and "TIF" to be transphobic, so it probably serves the purpose you want, though it was coined by TERFs, so maybe it doesn't.

(From a moderator point of view, I would not mod TIM or TIF, but if you start calling people trannies or ranting at length about how you think they are all disgusting perverts, you're going to run afoul of the rules, because we do allow trans people to participate here and you're expected to be civil to them too, even if you really don't want to be.)

Doesn't "trans" also connote some kind of medical procedure or is it entirely based on identifying?

I am not ignorant of your definition. I reject it.

The term you are looking for is "trans-identified male."

No, I was not looking for that term. I do not use that term, because I do not want to use that term, because I do not agree with the assumptions necessary for it to make sense.

I thought that was clear when I accused goodguy of smuggling in assumptions. This was the very assumption I objected to in the first place, and simply repeating it does nothing to change my objection.

Your terms don't make sense, though. You're just using words in an idiosyncratic way because you think you're putting some extra fire into them, but you will actually fail to communicate what you're talking about.

Man is the noun, which I think is well defined.

Trans is the adjective, which describes the man.

It makes perfect sense.

I tend towards "ex-man" and "ex-woman" for this, for 3 reasons:

  • Doesn't allow useful information about that person to be lost
  • Is indicative of how the person in question feels about having been in that category (and suggests parting on bad terms; contrast 'former'), while at the same time, doesn't force me to validate any further Special Snowflakery
  • Is a comic book reference, and that series tends to be at the very least inspiration for these kinds of people (for obvious reasons)

To be fair, this is more intuitive. The world is mad, you are sane.

So you call women who identify as men trans women, and you call men who identify as women trans men?

Okay, you do you, but most people will think you mean the opposite of what you're saying.

Bro you're being way too sensitive, to be frank. Yes, I'm completely fine with you calling them trans men, I just used the term "trans women" because that is the most common and thus least confusing term these days. And yes, you can refuse to hire them if you want to. I lean in favor of freedom of association overall. Although, you might want to be careful with that principle, since the same principle will cause some people to refuse to hire anyone with views that are seen as too right-wing, which indeed we have already seen happening.

As for the CRA, I think we can agree that it was in many ways a bad idea for the country. But that does not mean that it is a good thing for fervent, resentment-driven right-wingers to take over the country. Those are two somewhat separate conversations. CRA and Trumpists can both be bad.

Here’s an idea why don’t we call trans women men who play make believe?

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