site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   38429 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.

I for one believe the shooter should not be misgendered. Misgendering is disrespectful to all trans people. I guess I am a true believer.

There was a Reddit thread, a few months ago maybe, discussing a crime committed by a trans person. It was a murder or something similarly universally condemned. Some of the commenters were misgendering the perpetrator, others were criticizing the misgenderers.

One of the arguments brought up by the latter group was that you wouldn't call a Black person a "nigger", even if they have committed a vile crime. Using the word "nigger" is offensive to all Black people. It implies that being Black is bad in and of itself. Likewise with misgendering.

This is, of course, addressed to those who believe that misgendering trans people is not otherwise acceptable. Whether it is acceptable to misgender trans people in general, whether trans people really are their identified gender, etc., is a separate discussion.

I for one believe the shooter should not be misgendered. Misgendering is disrespectful to all trans people.

Nope. Actual trans people are already pushing it, when they demand that the entire society changes their language for their sake. I can see an argument for why good manners demand accommodating people acting in good faith, but criminals have no right to such accommodations. Let alone child murderers, or rapists.

If someone shoots up a school, there's a non-zero chance I'm gonna call them a bad name because I disapprove of their actions. I really don't think it matters if kids are dead and someone gets misgendered or called a "nigger."

NB I don't think it matters in any case, because I was raised that 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.' But I especially don't care about their feelings if they shot up a school

This is not about the shooter's feelings. Calling a Black criminal "nigger" is offensive to all Black people because it denigrates the Black criminal for being Black, not for being a criminal. Likewise, misgendering a transgender criminal is offensive to all trans people because it denigrates the trans criminal for being trans, not for being a criminal.

Not really. "Nigger" refers to a subset of black people. If you disagree, it's because you have no idea how people use that word in the real world.

I don't see how this analogy works. The 1st part seems right to me; calling a black person "nigger" in a derogatory way necessarily implies something negative about all black people, due to the history and connotations of that word. But misgendering a trans person doesn't denigrate all trans people; it just says that you don't consider that specific trans person as belonging to the gender they're claiming to. This doesn't denigrate them for being trans; at worst, it says that respecting their identified gender is conditional on that person not being a criminal. Which means not submitting to the "self-ID is definitionally correct" standard, but that's not denigrating the criminal for being trans.

I'm confused by your argument. A person's gender identity is orthogonal to their criminality. I agree that there are some people who are being knowingly deceitful when they claim to be trans but they aren't, and I don't really feel bad about someone "misgendering" or "deadnaming" Karen White, who is obviously a bad actor exploiting a poorly-designed policy.

But I don't understand the argument "I thought you were a legitimate trans person, but then you committed a crime, which proves that you were malingering all along!" The two things don't have anything to do with one another. "Legitimate" trans people (i.e. people diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a qualified mental health professional, and receiving medical treatment for that condition) commit crimes all the time. Committing a crime isn't a rule-out diagnostic criterion for gender dysphoria.

Maybe Audrey/Aiden Hale was suffering from gender dysphoria, maybe they weren't. If they were, the fact that they committed a horrific school shooting doesn't change that. If they weren't, likewise. It's just a completely irrelevant fact, like what colour shoes they were wearing at the time. Committing a crime doesn't stop a person from being authentically trans - this almost strikes me as a no true Scotsthey argument.

But I don't understand the argument "I thought you were a legitimate trans person, but then you committed a crime, which proves that you were malingering all along!" The two things don't have anything to do with one another.

That's not the argument, though. Charitably, the argument would be more like, "My choice to respect your preferred pronouns as a trans person is contingent on you not committing a crime (implied: of certain severity)." And that's also not my argument, and I don't subscribe to it myself. My argument is that somebody who does subscribe to that argument is not denigrating all trans people by subscribing to and living out such an argument, certainly not in a way similar to denigrating all black people by calling a particular black person "nigger."

The problem is, "not submitting to the 'self-ID is definitionally correct' standard" necessarily implies that some fraction of the time, self-ID may be overcome by an outside judgment, and this fatally undermines the activist position that self-ID is definitive. Admitting the existence of bad actors casts a shadow over every trans person's self-assessment of his own identity as the exclusive and inviolate basis of her social persona.

Right, so it's offensive to a certain subset (admittedly a very large and mainstream subset) of trans activists. And such trans activists are not shy about trying to conflate their own opinions with that of trans people in general. But such conflation has no real basis, and offending those activists doesn't imply offending trans people in general.

Right, so it's offensive to a certain subset (admittedly a very large and mainstream subset) of trans activists.

It's not merely the dominant position among alternatives; it won. There used to be a debate, but alternative positions like "trans identity is based on gender dysphoria" are no longer positions that you may hold publicly in the trans activist space.

And such trans activists are not shy about trying to conflate their own opinions with that of trans people in general.

Certainly true, and further, trans activists are frequently "allies," rather than trans themselves.

But such conflation has no real basis, and offending those activists doesn't imply offending trans people in general.

The first part is not true. The basis of the conflation is that the activists are the public face of the community--whether or not they are even members!--and get to define the community, including socially policing dissenters. "Offending trans people in general" simply does not matter; it's the opinions of the activists that carry social consequences for those who challenge self-ID uber alles.

The basis of the conflation is that the activists are the public face of the community--whether or not they are even members!--and get to define the community, including socially policing dissenters.

That sounds to me like false or fake basis, not a real one.

"Offending trans people in general" simply does not matter; it's the opinions of the activists that carry social consequences for those who challenge self-ID uber alles.

The claim being discussed was

Likewise, misgendering a transgender criminal is offensive to all trans people because it denigrates the trans criminal for being trans, not for being a criminal.

(emphasis added)

If you want to discuss whether or not this matters for one's own personal survival and well-being in our current cultural and social reality, that's an important discussion and something where I'd probably agree with you, but that's a different discussion.

Causing offense does not cause me any alarm compared to causing death. In fact, some level of offense is inevitable in a world where people only have control over their own feelings, no?

One of the arguments brought up by the latter group was that you wouldn't call a Black person a "nigger", even if they have committed a vile crime. Using the word "nigger" is offensive to all Black people. It implies that being Black is bad in and of itself. Likewise with misgendering.

This is, of course, addressed to those who believe that misgendering trans people is not otherwise acceptable.

Understanding this is a necessary prerequisite to understanding firmamenti's revealed preferences argument isn't it?

Misgendering an alleged trans person is not the same as calling a black person "nigger". It's more like saying "if you do X, you ain't black". Calling an alleged trans person "tranny" or "troon" would be an appropriate analogy.

I find that progressives do deny that people they dislike belong yo the protected group, but they will almost never use protected group slurs.

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