site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33522 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

Sure, but the point I was countering is that its rise was incomprehensible. If people will believe everything from God-cannibalism, to equality of the masses, to child sacrifice, trans ideology is far from the most extreme thing to be believed. It's rise is entirely comprehensible. Doesn't mean it's good or positive of course, but it's entirely within the kind of belief sets that humanity previously and currently holds.

speed and spread at which they were adopted was incomprehensible?

Even that isn't incomprehensible though. It's been decades in the making. It's the push against the previous more conservative dominance which pushed many types of people to the fringes. It's not a coincidence the lefty coalition is pro-LGBT, pro-choice, pro-minority. They are explictly fighting against the previous order. That's how this works, it's how it always works. This is just the next step in that push.

It's entirely understandable, ESPECIALLY because of the prior attitudes of those who adopted it. The T part is just the next logical push on the cultural battlefield. I'm honestly surprised you're baffled! Gay people and trans people have previously been discriminated against, therefore steps should to be taken to normalize that behaviour so that it does not happen again. It's simple and straightforward. It may not be correct or good for society overall, but it's not baffling or incomprehensible.

It's not actually been fast, consider Love Boat had an episode in 1982 where they tackled basically the idea that a trans person is still the same person you knew and should be supported. That is 40 years ago on mainstream TV. It's a decades long process.

I am very tempted to extract "people will do literally anything to react against their enemies, and none of it has to make sense or be remotely consistent" from your comment. But I fear that's more cynical and blackpilled that you intend?

Nope that is pretty much my position. But I don't regard it as a black pill but rather a white one. This fact is true and pretty much has always been true and yet we have progressed to where we are today, because our society has built in pushback, as one side gets stronger and closes its grip it pushes more and more people to the other side and a balance is reached and the pendulum swings. Progressives can push for whatever extremes they want, that is their societal role. That is what they SHOULD be doing. Then they overreach and fail. Conservatives SHOULD be trying to enforce the most cloying, restrictive norms they can, and when they overreach the dissidents will coalesce and take charge.

On a larger scale, the survivablility of our societies is excellent and comes from the built in social consensus that swings as more and more extreme positions are pushed.

Gay people and trans people have previously been discriminated against, therefore steps should to be taken to normalize that behaviour so that it does not happen again. It's simple and straightforward. It may not be correct or good for society overall, but it's not baffling or incomprehensible.

And with this simple argument, the groomer discourse became 1000% justified.

Also, the movement went way beyond merely ensuring non-discrimination. You need to also explain how and for what purpose it went as far as it did.

That is 40 years ago on mainstream TV. It's a decades long process.

No it's not. Things didn't move much since then until the mid 2010's.

Still not grooming. Unless previous pushes for homosexuality not to be accepted is also grooming in the same way. Goose, gander etc. Taboo the term, its not helpful here to avoid heat.

And the reason you have to push is simple.

Consider you want gay marriage to be legal and accepted. If you push to just there and stop and your opponents push bsck, then that is a live battlefield, you can lose it in no time. See Dobbs et al.

So you have to push the front beyond there. You have to be fighting on the next hill which is say the Hill of Trans acceptance, not the Plain of Gay marriage. And if you want Trans acceptance then you need to be fighting in the Valley of Trans Kids. The stable things you want accepted have to be in the rear view mirror.

Same how chunks of conservatism fight for Abortion bans even if the average Republican prefers 12 weeks or whatever. You have to be prepared to push past your goal if you want to keep it. Distributed motte and bailey tactics almost.

Still not grooming.

The LGBT movement was explicitly fighting for pedophile rights in the past. It is just as "simple and straightforward" that they will move onto it again at some point as it was that they moved from gay rights to trans rights.

So you have to push the front beyond there.

So again, we should never take the progressive movement at it's word. They will push beyond any compromise they are offering, either because it's "simple and straightforward" or just in case someone pushes back. Therefore your arguments about "still not grooming" should be ignored.

So again, we should never take the progressive movement at it's word. They will push beyond any compromise they are offering, either because it's "simple and straightforward" or just in case someone pushes back. Therefore your arguments about "still not grooming" should be ignored.

But that's not just progressives that's EVERY movement. So your argument is a fully generalized one against any movement including conservatism. Thus it's not useful as a critique. Every movement should be taken at its word AND understood that that word is not necessarily going to be the end point.

Can the left trust the right will stop at 13 weeks for Abortion or will those who want it to be banned entirely win? Both are true that most Republicans might want some point at 10-13 weeks AND that the loudest and most energetic wing will push for more and may as the moderates are less bothered, win.

We're not talking about individuals here, so talking about trust is pointless. Compromise is the point at which the opposition has enough support to push back. That's the balancing factor.

But that's not just progressives that's EVERY movement. So your argument is a fully generalized one against any movement including conservatism.

I don't know about EVERY. Surely there are groups that would respect a compromise. In any case it seems that now you're agreeing the progressive movement is pro-grooming, and your only counter is that conservatives want to restrict abortion even more. What does the latter have to do with the former? Why didn't you just concede from the start?

We're not talking about individuals here, so talking about trust is pointless.

I disagree. There are group dynamics, and there can be trust between groups.

More comments

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