site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Would you agree that the simplest, most obvious solution to the wage gap and indeed every other politically significant, statistically-measured gender gap in existence is for all men to say they are women?

That is to say, "whoever says they are a woman is a woman" is indeed simple, in atomic isolation. It is also completely incoherent with, at a minimum, the entire edifice of Feminism. When people say that the progressive position is not simple, they do not mean that the definitions offered have too many words, but rather that the position is evidently incoherent, and that this incoherent state is only maintainable in a safe space and with an ocean of squid ink.

Would you agree that the simplest, most obvious solution to the wage gap and indeed every other politically significant, statistically-measured gender gap in existence is for all men to say they are women?

Hah, this immediately made me think of Dr Seuss's The Sneetches. That'd be an interesting state of affairs to live in.

Would you agree that the simplest, most obvious solution to the [gender] wage gap?

Only in the sense that it would decouple the gender wage gap from the sex wage gap. The sex gap would still exist. "Feminism" is too broad a church to say that any one idea is or isn't coherent with it, but replace the term with "anti-sexism" and it's instantly clearer that it can coexist happily with transgenderism. (Transgenderism cannot coexist happily with biological-female supremacists, but since when do we like them? Trans activists certainly don't pretend that Radical Feminists are anything but their enemies. There's no incoherence there, just open rivalry.)

Also:

when people say that the progressive position is not simple

Actually, lizzardspawn, to whom my reply was directed, was very much accusing the progressive position of lacking a detailed definition at all; not complaining about it being insufficiently simple.