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 -
This seems like it's deflecting from the argument we were debating all this time. You were saying that anyone against trans rights is using the same type of argument as people arguing against Civil Rights. By analogy, this would mean you have to focus on the people arguing against pedo acceptance, and say that they are using the exact same arguments, that homophobes used to. If you believe there is a flaw in this reasoning, then you now see the flaw in your original argument.
That's an interesting take, but for me to accept it would require the kind of outgroup-mindreading that is discouraged here. In any case I don't think this can be derived from the progressive movement's own statements about themselves. Even in private they seem to be more about abolishing boundaries than perverting (unless there are even more super-secret forums, than the ones I'm aware of).
That's not very helpful, because it's true of nearly every single perspective, possibly including those of clinical schizophrenics. What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
You've completely misunderstood me. I don't set myself apart from the rest, and if I did, I'd be putting myself below the religious, not above. My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one. It's perfectly possible to have rational conversation with a believer, it's even possible to have one about the core tenets of their religion, but religious conversations often devolve into simply reciting doctrine and expecting the other person to instantly bow down, or something. I think this is what happened here. If a religious person wants a rational conversation about the core tenets of their beliefs, they need to come to the conversation with the awareness of the inferential gap between the participants.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's, but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
I don't see the deflection. People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals. Nor did popular support much to save segregation. It's about the context. Rosa Parks didn't matter until a bunch of media outlets made her a front page story. By that point the 'argument' presented is: Should nice old ladies who are no different from us except for the amount of melanin in their skin be allowed to sit where they want on a bus they paid to be on? And only inane morons would ever bother to engage with that argument in the negative. Same goes for respectable men walking down a New York street wearing suit and tie demanding equal rights under the law. Why should they be deprived of holding their loved ones hand during their final moments on a hospital bed?
The entire discourse is premade. All the relevant points of contention that predicate the 'arguments' accepted by all relevant parties. So long as you exist within that context without recognizing and rejecting it, all the arguments are irrelevant. We're just a few decades of well made movies and documentaries away from lowering the age of consent by a few years. The only hope against that outcome is that the progressive disgust response activates for enough of them at some point to be against that. Outside of that, the march of progress will continue.
I personally don't believe that people who argue against trans rights but not the overarching context have a leg to stand on. They can make no claim to any of these things. To that end I agree more with the trans people. At least they are consistent to the program. It's also super easy. I can farm downvotes but no coherent arguments that don't boil down to an essential admission of transphobia. If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash. And all the people who pretend to stand on the principles of biology and whatever would practically vanish.
I mean, it's practically convenient that this place mods out the heat that keeps the progressive flame alive. Otherwise dissent from progressive orthodoxy would become a bannable offense in just a few months. It's why this place is here and not on reddit.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context. The progressives will just keep on with their lies. History will remember anti-LGBTQA+ people as hateful losers, just like we remember those who were against segregation.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know. I don't think it's possible. Nor should it be, if that persons faith is true and they value and protect it.
Not unbelievers, people who want to cast away the parts of the religion that inconvenience them, but hold the parts that don't. I can't demonstrate that without bonking them on the head with a Bible. Progressive morality is the dominant morality. Not just as words on the internet, but what guides 80% of people as they listen to the radio, watch TV or do anything. People then want to carve out special caveats for their own predilections but still scoff at those who do the same for all the rest of progressive fake morality, rationality, reason and history.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty. To what grand moral narrative would you appeal? It's partially why I make an appeal to rape in mens prisons and the fallout of desegregation. How can trans people be a bigger issue than that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link