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 -
I don't disagree. I'm just saying: everyone does it, from queers to Pentacostals. It tells you very little about the moral integrity of the average member of the group, and ~0 about the merits of their ideology. So you shouldn't let this stuff affect how you think of trans rights qua trans rights, unless you're prepared to throw overboard any position whose proponents commit this kind of epistemological sin.
(And let's be fair. Literal concentration camps for trans people might be science fiction, but a plurality of conservatives would proudly own up to wanting to make crossdressing/being-publicly-transgender illegal, and a majority would at least want it to be socially shunned. Calling that "genocide" might be hyperbolic but trans activists can't be faulted for worrying about it a fair bit.)
Which propositions do you think have majority/plurality support among conservatives in the united states, or even if you limit it to red state conservatives?
I think you'd have majority support for 1, 3, 4, and 10, and plurality support for 8. I don't think anything else on that list rises to that level.
Interesting that you phrase all of these as requirements/restrictions/what-have-you as opposed to permissions/freedoms/what-have-you. Interesting that you have 9 for children & adults, and 10 for children, but no 'for adults'.
I suspect you'd get different responses between the following categories:
More options
Context Copy link
I agree, though with the caveat that this only describes today's conservatives. Salami tactics aren't the sole purview of the Left; in a world where 1, 3, 4 and 10 become hitching points of the Overton window, hardliners will find it easier to drum up support for the rest of the list. For example, if you had 3, 4 and 8, 12 might not be codified into law overnight but would run a high risk of quickly becoming the unspoken norm, in exactly the same way that DEI-style measures became endemic even in institutions with no hard legal mandate to apply them.
I also think you phrased 4 as a needlessly weak version of that particular fear. With things like the withheld Disney cartoon, it goes beyond drag shows qua drag shows: the concern is that conservatives want to legally equate "being publicly trans" with "drag", and qualify any media depicting transition as adult-only media, not just live drag shows. I couldn't care less whether minors can go to drag shows, but I would consider it very damaging and illiberal to restrict their access to non-sexual books, comics and cartoons with trans characters in them. And I'm pretty sure you could get majority support for that among today's conservatives, albeit perhaps by not that wide of a margin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am, actually. The Roman Catholic Church justifiably took a huge hit because they chose to protect a tiny handful of bad actors rather than let them be properly exposed and punished. And to be fair, the Church never claimed that what their child molesting priests did was okay, or that it didn't happen. Which is different from trans activists, who generally take the position that no trans woman is ever a bad actor, and if there are any, they are singular exceptions and only bigots would notice them.
I think that's a reason to think less of the Catholic Church as an organization, but not of random Catholic laypeople, or Christianity as a belief system in general.
(I almost wrote: "or of Catholicism as a belief system", which isn't true, but only because Catholicism is inherently self-referential, affirming the holiness and infallibility of the Church as an article of faith. The basic points of gender ideology in no way imply, let alone rely on the assumption, that today's trans activists and community leaders are heavenly-appointed and infallible.)
Would you say the same about all organizations? Or is this specific to a subset thereof? If so, what is the criteria for an organization to be in said subset?
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, and generally speaking I do not think less of individual Catholics even though I think their religion and their Church is hokum. I also do not think less of individual trans people - the ones I know are generally pretty nice and chill. That said, I can tell the Catholics I know (if it comes up) that I don't share their beliefs or support their Church, and they might argue with me but they generally won't take offense as long as I'm not being an asshole about it. I cannot tell the trans people I know that I am only being polite and I don't really think they are women (or "non-binary"). They might suspect that's how I feel (they probably know that's how many people feel) but if I were to let the mask slip, even unintentionally and without malice, there would be social consequences. I resent this, and I do think it comes pretty close to being unquestionable holy doctrine in the minds of many activists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link