site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38427 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well now that we know it's a transgendered individual, it will be interesting to see how the culture war plays out with red flag laws. If mental illness is a red flag leading to disarmament this particular incident will be hard to explain away.

Why? This seems to be hinting at "all trans people are inherently disordered" but if you don't grant that premise (as most gun control advocates won't) it is not a problem at all (and is an argument in favor of red flag laws).

I should have thought more before commenting to explain better why I think this will - or could - be interesting. As @desolation has pointed out and hit upon my way of thinking, red flag laws usually have some provisions for mental illnesses. As the definition of transgenderism as a mental illness falls into sides of the culture war I can see red states classifying transgenderism as a criteria for disarmament. Which if it happened would be hilarious to see the group that clamored for red flag laws later say "no, not like that!" Bonus points if it causes red flag laws to be brought in front of the supreme court.

Again, I'm not really seeing the tension (being in favor of a particular kind of law does not require you to be in favor of literally any instance of it), and if anything it would be used to highlight conservative hypocrisy in terms of being pro-gun rights until they can use it as a pretext to discriminate against people they don't like/disarm prospective victims.

There have already been some social justice aligned criticisms of Bruen response efforts like Oregon's Measure 114 along those lines. It would probably be amplified in your hypothetical cases where it's the other team in control of the state though.

Interesting... thanks for that I didn't know about any challenges along these lines.

One caveat- it's not immediately clear to me what Florida defines as "seriously mentally ill," and at least some of those comorbidity studies are counting "specific phobia," which I'm not sure would make sense as a red-flag-violating risk without further context.

Yeah, I think it's worth pointing to this caveat with a big flashing light. The actual statute authorizing Floridian risk protection orders authorizes petitioners to :

Allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having a firearm or any ammunition in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or any ammunition, and must be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent;

While the courts must evaluate whether :

Upon notice and a hearing on the matter, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or any ammunition, the court must issue a risk protection order for a period that it deems appropriate, up to and including but not exceeding 12 months.

(c) In determining whether grounds for a risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

1. A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm.

2. An act or threat of violence by the respondent within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others.

3. Evidence of the respondent being seriously mentally ill or having recurring mental health issues.

... [it goes on up to 15.]

That is, mental illness alone of any severity does not meet the requirements for a risk protection order, which instead must depend on clear and convincing evidence of danger to himself or herself or others, according to the statute.

In practice, it's not clear how well the courts tend to treat submissions with a skeptical eye: Orlando v. Velasquez got taken out a couple weeks later, and the guy in that case was an absolute putz, but at the very least the ex parte hearing was quite willing to act based on police box-checking that either was untrue or unable to be proven.

That is, mental illness alone of any severity does not meet the requirements for a risk protection order, which instead must depend on clear and convincing evidence of danger to himself or herself or others, according to the statute.

Isn't the basis of the argument for gender-affirmation that the trans person is an imminent risk to themselves? Affirmation is required to subvert suicidal tendencies; to not affirm is to commit "genocide" because this is all that stands between the trans person and self-harm? And since affirmation relies on the participation of uncooperative third-parties, the stability of the trans person is in constant jeopardy?

I don't know how you square this argument, which is the basis for the current mode of treatment for people with gender dysphoria, with "not a danger to themselves."

As I understand, the recent FTM cohort is mostly inherently disordered people - that is, people with diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, of the sort that used to get eating disorders before.

Hard to find anything on it though, best I recall finding were comments by Finnish psychologists saying something to the effect that members of the big FTM wave post 2010 were far more likely to have psychiatric disorders.

/images/16799920041015923.webp

If mental illness is a red flag leading to disarmament this particular incident will be hard to explain away.

Rules for thee, but not for me. They'll effortlessly decline to address the contradictions or bother to explain anything at all.

Trans activists are already way ahead of you on this one. They have argued many times in the past that transgenderism is not a mental illness, and any law that would consider transgenderism a mental illness in regards to being disarmed would be immediately ridiculed and shot down by trans activists.

shot down by trans activists

So to speak

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