site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   30915 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 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.

It's not a wonder you don't care about reforming the science to have evidence based results on if trans healthcare for minors has positive or negative results for patients if you've already made up your mind that it's unethical off other grounds.

Do you think the science of treating autists with Lupron just needed reform, or is it better that it was axed?

Science should not be

Step 1: Have a view established off something else Step 2: Only accept evidence, research, and experts that agrees with the pre-established view and not the ones that disagree. Step 3: Declare the issue done with and stop further research.

Funny you say that, because this is exactly what trans medicine has been so far.

Has the buried systemic review from your second link been unearthed?

Never heard of it going public, but I didn't go looking either. Might take stab at it later.

It's not just one review they're sitting on, by the way, I don't remember the number, but I think it's about a dozen (or half-dozen? I seem to remember the word "dozen" appearing somewhere in the context).

@magic9mushroom, ah, there we go

C. WPATH Hindered Publication of Evidence Reviews.

Though the SOC-8 authors and their advocacy allies didn’t seem to have much use for them,132 the Johns Hopkins evidence review team “completed and submitted reports of reviews (dozens!) to WPATH” for SOC-8.133 The results were concerning. In August 2020, the head of the team, Dr. Robinson, wrote to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at HHS about their research into “multiple types of interventions (surgical, hormone, voice therapy…).”134 She reported: “[W]e found little to no evidence about children and adolescents.”135 HHS wrote back: “Knowing that there is little/no evidence about children and adolescents is helpful.”136

All the references are to the Boe v. Marshall case from the second link (which also contains a direct link to the evidence from the case).

The "there we go" is in regard to the "dozen", not the buried reviews?

Correct, still didin't look if I'll find the reviews (and am leaning pessimistic, I'm guessing Alabama's AG who wrote that document would already have them, if they were uncoverable). Sorry if there was any confusion.

Do you think the science of treating autists with Lupron just needed reform, or is it better that it was axed?

Was there a bunch of consenting autistic people begging to be given lupron? I think there are different standards between "studies of medicine forced on someone without their permission" and "studies of medicine done with the consent of both child and parent"

Funny you say that, because this is exactly what trans medicine has been so far.

Ah I wasn't aware two wrongs made a right. I guess the Whataboutists had the best idea after all.

Was there a bunch of consenting autistic people begging to be given lupron?

Since we're talking about children, they can't consent directly (and since we're talking autism, it's possible they could have been non-verbal anyway), so the relevant question would be about the parents. Yes, there were parents begging for it, that's why they went to a doctor offering it.

I think there are different standards between "studies of medicine forced on someone without their permission" and "studies of medicine done with the consent of both child and parent"

No one was forcing the parents, and if your entire objection rests on children "consenting", it's pretty trivial to manipulate them into wanting it (which is exactly what happened with trans care).

And if you're still not convinced I can give you more examples where the patients were begging for quack therapy, and it got shut down by the authorities. Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy, off the top of my head.

Ah I wasn't aware two wrongs made a right. I guess the Whataboutists had the best idea after all.

It's not whataboutism to want to defund corrupt research, and if you only criticize the defunders, you don't really believe it's "two wrongs".

A return to 2000s norms on this is hardly a wrong. The only reason we're here at all is due to about a decade of Overton window pushing. When these studies and techniques are the best they've got to offer on a fight they picked, it's a moral imperative to just kill it without even asking anymore.

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