site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33387 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

People aren't just arguing about it in the abstract. Contrapoints is enforcing that abstract thinking on the discussion by insisting on begging the question on whether trans activism is in some ways distinct from other forms of activism (which would mean the cancellations could be more unjust than past ones).

I think this is exactly right, thanks for articulating it. As someone who is relatively sympathetic to the original gay rights movement, the whole time she was talking about Anita Bryant I was thinking, "Okay, sure, it was unjust for gay people to be thrown in jail for sodomy, and so maybe some form of "cancellation" was justified here, but that's way different than the kind of changes that trans activists are demanding!"

You see this kind of rhetorical move used a lot by the woke--drawing on the essentially universal consensus that the civil rights movement was a good thing, and then trying to make parallels between the activism of that era and the activism of our own, and implying that the moral questions are just as easy to answer now as they were back then. I see a similar move being made by "abolitionists" who clearly chose the term to evoke slavery abolitionists, even though abolishing slavery and abolishing the police are radically different types of policies and have almost nothing to do with each other.

As to Rowling: I guess by "enemy of the trans movement" I was more trying to get at the fact that she is now someone who says things that your average progressive wouldn't agree with, even in private (whereas saying there should be reasonable restrictions on sports, minors transitioning, etc., can get agreement in private even from a lot of liberals). I used to use Rowling as a good example of unreasonable cancellation because she wasn't even saying things that were outside the realm of normal progressive discourse, but now that she's passed that boundary she no longer can serve as an easy example of leftist overreach (although I still think she has been unreasonably cancelled and I largely agree with her).

You see this kind of rhetorical move used a lot by the woke--drawing on the essentially universal consensus that the civil rights movement was a good thing, and then trying to make parallels between the activism of that era and the activism of our own

Ignoring, of course, that the moral righteousness of the Civil Rights era resulted in too-expansive laws that have permanently perverted the relationship between the federal government and the people. Moral righteousness doesn't automatically convert to good solutions, and actually usually results in bad solutions because too much righteousness overwhelms temperance and rationality.

You see this kind of rhetorical move used a lot by the woke--drawing on the essentially universal consensus that the civil rights movement was a good thing, and then trying to make parallels between the activism of that era and the activism of our own, and implying that the moral questions are just as easy to answer now as they were back then.

I think to be fair, during the actual civil rights era these weren't considered easy questions to answer. We went from 4% of polled Americans supporting interracial marriage in 1959, to 94% today. The argument is that it was only because a small and annoying minority of 4% argued their point in the marketplace of ideas that support for interracial marriage can be so high today. MLK Jr. was one of the most hated men in America, and considered a dangerous radical.

Certainly, for any civil rights struggle there would have once been a time when the average American wouldn't have accepted that the thing under discussion was an easy question, even if we look back and see it as a no brainer.

I think it goes without saying that if trans activists "win", then in 40 years it will be just as "obvious" that they were right to most people.

‘Her’ argument is arc-of-history triumphalism, but am I the only one who notices that arc-of-history triumphalism is by nature an inapplicable argument even if you accept the underlying frame? Opposing interracial marriage is verboten today because 94% of the population supports it, and this wasn’t something anyone could have predicted in 1965.

I think it goes without saying that if trans activists "win", then in 40 years it will be just as "obvious" that they were right to most people.

Counter-example: pro-abortion activists "won" in 1973, but the thing they won remained just as controversial as ever for the next fifty years.

I think it goes without saying that if trans activists "win", then in 40 years it will be just as "obvious" that they were right to most people.

It goes without saying because it's tautological. No one will see them as having won, unless most people agree with them.

I agree with you he made a mistake by saying the moral questions of the past were easy even back then, but the rhetorical trick he pointed out is real. It goes more like: people like you objected to civil rights, but almost everybody including you is now on board with them, therefore you should now support X without objection, because it's just a question of time before we all realize this is the Right Side of History. Being correct is assumed, and the necessity to argue their case is rejected.

The issue is that there are also plenty of horrors that we have carried out in the name of progress, and it also wasn't obvious at the time how horrifying they're going to be. I'd have no issue with the process of us living and learning, if it wasn't for the obvious difference in how these things are remembered. Horrors against progressivism are enshrined in history as things we must Never Forget, lest we repeat past mistakes. Horrors of progressivism are either outright forgotten, swept under nervous coughs, covered up with "well, we had good intentions", or pinned on a different ideology.

MLK Jr. was one of the most hated men in America, and considered a dangerous radical.

And today that's how we see transphobes! Coincidence?

Bingo.

Consider that state-enforced eugenics used to be a progressive policy. Just following the science!!

Alcohol prohibition too. That gets a little muddled (protestants/evangelicals and progressives working together??) but consider how progressives call for bans on trans fats and sugary drinks nowadays.

Progressive policies often win the day, but not always. And they usually write their failures so they do not get attributed to their ideology and they write their successes to seem inevitable.

This adds an extra layer of fallacy by pretending opponents of progressive policies all either changed their mind or ended up on the wrong side of history, even if the issues ARE comparable.

This is one reason why, as a progressive, I believe that a strong and vibrant conservative movement is not just desirable but necessary for progressivism to succeed. Progressivism is supposed to be about progress (I think the term has been mostly redefined due to use by its own proponents to mean something else in recent years), and progress isn't the same thing as change - for change to be progress, it has to be forward in some meaningful way, in this context something like better. Anyone is going to have the bias that the change they want will accomplish something better than before, and so progressives can't be trusted to accurately assess whether the changes we're calling for is actually progress or just change that we genuinely believe is good. So we need people to argue and fight against us so that the strongest, most correct changes are the ones that stand up to scrutiny and are actually implemented, while the weakest, most misguided changes get trashed. It's highly imperfect and messy, but that's the best way I can see for us to even make a sort of attempt at achieving actual progress rather than merely change that I've convinced myself is progress.

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