site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34975 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 2023

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who is "we" and what is "guiding" and what is the "proper path"?

The we is society as a whole.

What I would argue, is in the effort to eliminate the male gender role, activists have created this thing where we're not helping men actually succeed the male gender role in a healthy, sustainable way. (Note: Just because I think we're not getting rid of the male gender role doesn't mean I think the same thing about the female gender role. I absolutely do not) That's what we need to do, that's IMO what the guy in this story did wrong. But I also think that so much of this relies on unstated assumptions that IMO are entirely unfair.

I would argue the gender binary is a construct, since the definition of masculinity and femininity are different in certain cultures, like Japan and Korea. Therefore, since it is a construct, it is arbitrary. Therefore, the elimination of the male gender role is a good thing, because it stops men from being bullied and shamed into habits and mannerisms that are not natural to them, since not all men act the same nor have the same preferences.

The problem is that there's very little to no interest in actually getting rid of the male gender role. It's too useful, both on an individual and on a societal level. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's arbitrary....I think there's a historical development based around material needs....but certainly it's something that COULD be changed if we had the gumption. We just don't.

I don't say that as a macho type man either, truth be told, I had to work pretty hard to get at least somewhat decent both at actually performing the male gender role, and frankly, believing that it's in any way ethical to do so. I'd personally be better off if we jettisoned it. But I think asking men to basically ignore the incentive structures that exist in society is a big part of a lot of the social problems we're seeing today.

"The idea of a 'laptop' is a construct, since, depending on the manufacturer, a tablet with an attached keyboard can be a laptop, or a 20lb bulky monster can be a laptop. Therefore, construct, arbitrary. Eliminating the role of a 'laptop' is a good thing - it will allow increased flexibility in the computing-device market to meet any available needs".

The "constructs of masculinity and femininity" in japan and korea are remarkably similar to ours. Men are physically stronger, physically larger, are more competitive, pursue women more, are leaders more, are more aggressive generally, have more potential for violence, etc.

What is wrong with "increased flexibility in the computing-device market to meet any available needs"? And do you have evidence men are more competitive than women and are "leaders" more?

The desktop and laptop form factors describe emergent, useful niches of computer form and function that persist. If other form-factors were commercially viable, we might have them, bc capitalism! Similarly, 'male' and 'female' describe the way in which social and biological attributes have formed around men and women reproducing and raising children.

And do you have evidence men are more competitive than women and are "leaders" more?

Er, I was describing those as parts of the 'constructs of masculinity and femininity' that are universal, including being present in japan and korea. Construct, here, means "a japanese person would believe that men are more competitive and more often leaders", which is true.

I don't see how you can say that masculinity is significantly different in Japan or Korea than the West. Societies where men were still considered leaders, fighters, and those who valued the same masculine attributes/virtues as their counterparts in the West (loyalty, strength/competence, aggression, pursuit of women, stoicism, etc.)

There isn't perfect overlap, (e.g. the aesthetics vary significantly), but I don't see how someone can look at something with 90% similarity and say that it is arbitrary because of that 10%.

If these things were actually arbitrary, you should see massive, significant differences from culture to culture. Women in lots of places should be the sexual/romantic aggressors. Men in lots of places should be considered more sensitive. You shouldn't have to go to the other side of the world, find gender norms that are similar in most ways, and say that because they aren't identical, it must all just be arbitrary.

Because the 10% exists at all means an 11% can exist, and therefore a 12%, and so on. Thus, it is not biologically set in stone, and thus men and women who deviate from Western gender norms are not deviants brainwashed by feminism, but simply expressing natural instincts. The culture of social conservatism versus the culture of social progressivism I would argue is so vastly different that, well, you have the existence of transgendered folks fighting against people who think they are mentally ill. The fact that there are trans women who successfully pass in public defeats the argument that women and men have unchanging traits that make them inherently different, as Western gender roles would have one believe.

Because the 10% exists at all means an 11% can exist, and therefore a 12%, and so on.

So because I can turn my neck and some people can turn their necks more than others, I could turn my neck 270 degrees like an owl and be fine?

You say 11% and 12% with the implication that therefore it could be 100%. That doesn't really follow.

There are many things that can vary somewhat from environment, but remain mostly biological. Height would be an obvious example. People can vary in height by 10% based on nutrition while they were growing, but that doesn't mean that it can vary 100% or that it is arbitrary. If you want to argue that gender roles are in a different category, then you need a better argument than that.

The existence of successfully passing trans women does prove it can be 100%, otherwise, every single trans woman, no matter how much surgery they had, would be instantly recognizable as a man due to their mannerisms violating their gender role. But there are trans women who walk around you all the time who you wouldn't know were trans if they didn't tell you.

That doesn't follow either. Gender roles aren't "mannerisms." That just goes back to the 10% aesthetic differences, but if the only difference was how you put one leg over the other, gender roles would hardly even be worth mentioning.

Your posts make me wonder if you even think that gender roles are anything besides the aesthetic portion. That would certainly explain why you think they are entirely relative and arbitrary.

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