site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33488 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apparently there’s been a big drop in conservative support for gay marriage, all in the space of a year.

People are saying this is big, but it doesn't seem nearly big enough given how obviously duped conservatives who supported this (heck even progressives) were by the propaganda. Lets examine the sales pitch for gay marriage.

  1. We just want what's fair. False. They immediately demanded everyone participate.

  2. This wont affect your family. False. You and your family will constantly be in court battles to keep your family together against state agents attempting to castrate your kid.

  3. This will normalize the gay community. False, they are more depraved in public than ever.

  4. Love is love. Maybe?

We just want what's fair. False. They immediately demanded everyone participate.

How? Being able to marry someone (and have the social benefits that come with it) is fair.

Is this about the cake thing (shopping around for a bakery that wont make a gay wedding cake, just to bring them to court)? Sure, I disagree with what happened there but isn't that painting with a rather large brush? I would also say holding all religious people to the actions of a crazy church would be wrong too.

You and your family will constantly be in court battles to keep your family together against state agents attempting to castrate your kid.

Do you really think this happens a lot? Maybe it's because I went to public school but I had a few teachers that were waaaay out there. I think the only difference is that now, there's social media. Yes, there are crazy teachers... It's an odd profession. But like everything, we need to keep the big picture in mind.

Note: Teachers how take it too far are bad. Some of the push back is very justified.

This will normalize the gay community. False, they are more depraved in public than ever.

I don't understand this point. Can't we say being gay is fine but maps are bad? Or must we adhere to a slippery slope?

So a small percentage of people are crazy, therefore everything is bad. Is that really your argument?

I would also say holding all religious people to the actions of a crazy church would be wrong too.

The "crazy church" in this case was the government of Colorado, which has been followed by many other states in setting the same policies. Do you see a difference?

I would also say holding all religious people to the actions of a crazy church would be wrong too.

Do you genuinely believe "the actions of a crazy church" are comparable to malicious litigants attempting to create binding legal precedents that they can weaponize against their enemies?

I think if we specify the church as the Westboro Baptist Church, then yeah, that actually sounds a bit like what they do.

The WBC never filed lawsuits against anyone, to my knowledge. People they protested filed lawsuits against them, and they won those lawsuits because "being crazy" is not a bar to exercising First Amendment rights.

You might be surprised! At least according to this article, it looks like their strategy is to try and provoke their potential targets into trying to ban them, then sue them for 1st amendment violations and regularly rack up tens of thousands in court fees. It's not a bad racket when half your family are lawyers.

Edit: whoops, link was borked.

Wasn’t the wbc financing themselves through lawsuits at one point?

Is this about the cake thing (shopping around for a bakery that wont make a gay wedding cake, just to bring them to court)? Sure, I disagree with what happened there but isn't that painting with a rather large brush? I would also say holding all religious people to the actions of a crazy church would be wrong too.

The cake guy is merely one of many. He's the one who can afford to litigate. Most people merely are forced into compliance.

Do you really think this happens a lot?

Happens a lot is a subjective call. It happening once is enough for everyone to be afraid and walk on eggshellls.

I don't understand this point. Can't we say being gay is fine but maps are bad? Or must we adhere to a slippery slope?

We can try. But the gays don't want that. And its not really clear that there is any line between gays and MAPS that is principled as they all appear to have an interest in lowering every standard.

So a small percentage of people are crazy, therefore everything is bad. Is that really your argument?

I wish the percentage was small. The LGBT mindvirus controls a significant number of public school teachers now.

You and your family will constantly be in court battles...

Does this happen a lot?

Happens a lot is a subjective call. It happening once is enough...

You moved the goal posts.

Are you OK with applying this metric to everything? Should we shut down all churches because someone got abused? Should we ban all cars because someone got their foot ran over? These examples are hyperbolic but my point is that something happening once really isn't enough.

But the gays don't want that.

I want that, I'm not straight. Do I not count?

I wish the percentage was small. The LGBT mindvirus controls a significant number of public school teachers now.

Or, the internet creates echo chambers and you've found yourself in one.

Yes, activist teachers exist and they are a problem... But how big of a problem it actually is, is another matter. This is true for most culture war issues

Are you OK with applying this metric to everything? Should we shut down all churches because someone got abused? Should we ban all cars because someone got their foot ran over? These examples are hyperbolic but my point is that something happening once really isn't enough.

I am interested in identifying emergent trends that are bad and stopping them before they become as big as the Catholic priest scandal (that public education has an ongoing and larger in volume similar problem, at seemingly similar rates is mysteriously not covered by the media). And that scandal is important to look at in the LGBT context. Most of the abuse was male-male pederasty. And these priests were protected by other priests who also had engaged in M-M sexual abuse and all these Cardinals who were high ranking and abusers circled the wagons around the low ranking ones. It is instructive.

I want that, I'm not straight. Do I not count?

Not really. Like in some infinitesimal way you do, the same as me. But just as my view that we should lower the drinking age specifically for places with lower population density holds no sway on the right, your position doesn't hold any significant sway among mainstream gay and trans advocacy groups.

Yes, activist teachers exist and they are a problem... But how big of a problem it actually is, is another matter. This is true for most culture war issues

We can say this. But we have to be honest. The BOP really is on the left in this situation. They control the schools and the higher ed people who would be doing the investigation. If they aren't publishing things, its super duper strong bayesian evidence that there is a lot of bad stuff afoot.

And its not really clear that there is any line between gays and MAPS that is principled as they all appear to have an interest in lowering every standard.

Who's "they all"? The LGBT movement is primarily by and for the edification of straight white women (I don't think the view that gays are driving the current movement makes any sense whatsoever, Threeper claims notwithstanding); so it makes sense that occupations (like 'public school teacher') that are overwhelmingly female would be all in.

Once you understand that, everything else kind of falls into place. It's now possible to understand the attitude that these things aren't harmful, because to a modern straight white woman, they aren't- stripteases are what X (usually a woman) does to seduce Y (usually a man), and in that light, claiming this somehow damages or degrades the Y doesn't make sense (and why the operative word to condemn this is a comparatively pithy "sexualization"). BDSM parades (being a larger version of this) are viewed with a similar attitude- why would seeing weird-but-ultimately-non-threatening (you know, because gay men definitely want sex with straight women) displays of sexuality degrade or harm the viewer?

(Which is kind of why the dynamic around this conversation is "but it harms the viewer by sexualizing them", which is an argument from aesthetics with scant factual backing, typically conflated with an argument on religious grounds because that's the group most known for operating as if it does have factual backing.)

As far as "secret conversations about sexuality"... if the median woman derives joy from being a social token with an underlying oppression narrative/excuse, well, it's natural for them to assume that everyone works like that, and being transgender is the tokenist token to token today.

Plus, it's a way for these women to vicariously experience being an (adoptive) mother and validate this version of the "me against the world" narrative; bonus points if you can blame it on big bad Dad.

This isn't a particularly imaginative take, but I think it's the most straightforward examination of why the claims of "this movement is intended so that strange men can fuck your son or daughter" (which is what pedo means in the mind of the general public) just haven't been resonating with the general public.

The critics can occasionally get a workable angle in painting these sorts of behaviors as molestation (and if you reverse the genders above, they would be instantly recognized as such). "Sexualization" is a first pass, "brainwashing" a slight refinement, and "they're protecting teen boys who molest your daughter and arrest you if you protest" is enough to propel an anti-molestation candidate into office in Virginia.

In summary, I'm at a complete loss for why a movement by and for straight, white, misandrist women want to increase the amount of exploitative sex men have with their daughters, and I think everyone else is too.

Also, I think everyone with eyes can see that the standard for "how old should a person be before it's kosher for (older) adults to have sex with them" has only been rising. One has to cook up conspiracy theories such as "well obviously they are outwardly lying while fucking kids on the down low even more", while ignoring what seems to me like a very obvious fact - the less trust society has in close, individual adult-child relationships, the fewer avenues there are for exploitation.

The amount of thirsting over underage male characters I observe, outside of specialized places, is much lower than underage female characters so the exact disparity is hard to observe as well. Millions want to fuck Asuka, barely anyone wants to fuck Shinji.

Plus, it's not uncommon for people to point out the weirdness that kids can apparently consent to virtually anything at any age if you can put a medical spin on it, but women in their 20s can't consent to a relationship with a man more than a few months older.

Maybe those who introduce such standards don't think they're "just putting a medical spin on it", but rather that the case is medical? Then it's different standards of agency for different fields, which is how it worked everywhere since time immemorial, by my rough estimate.

The women consent thing is weird, but there are still age limits for other things that are set above adulthood - like being the President - so there's some precedent.

One, it's an interesting change from the situation where most if not all medical procedures require parental consent with relatively rare and limited exceptions.

Well yeah, it's where the medical meets the cultural. It's kind of like if a child required blood transfusion, and the parents are Mormons who'll say no, and don't blood transfusions sometimes cause rejection? Except in this case, I doubt the child's consent would even be asked, I'd expect the doctors to just do it.

if social acceptance is gender-affirming care, isn't having a relationship also gender-affirming care?

So far "no, you don't have a right to another person's intimacy, not even if you want to die without it" works well enough.

Three, after Diane Ehrensaft talked about toddlers removing barrettes as a non-verbal sign of gender non-conformity, and she wasn't immediately laughed out of the room and defrocked into obscurity, my consideration that there was meaningful consideration occurring on the topic dropped substantially.

I don't know who that is. I suspect the only people who do are the kind of people who don't do the consideration and those who are fed outrage fuel - and only the former are present in her audience.

More comments

I mean, there is a pretty obvious principled line between adult homosexuality and pederasty. I'll give you a hint - it's the same one straight people use.

What do you think that principled line is?

But gays do not.

I do.

Then you appear to be an outlier. Because performing stripteases in front of 9 year olds, public BDSM parades, and having secret conversations with children about sex that parents cant know about are core tenants of the movement as a whole right now.

You are doing nothing but weakmanning and booing your outgroup here, and if you are going to double down on how "the gays" are all (or 99%) groomers and pedarasts, you really need to bring some evidence, not just your feels.

I just warned you to stop this kind of low effort snarling. So take three days off to chill out.

There's not infrequent messaging warning young women and girls about predatory pederasts. You can find frequent discussions by women and girls recounting when they first felt the leers of men as the objects of male sexual desire. That many will use the vocabulary of victimization I think is unhelpful.

Is there still messaging directed at boys and young men warning of the homosexual pederast? Do men and boys still have male only spaces where they're allowed to exclude homosexuals to have the frank discussions necessary to convey the danger posed?

I don't think there was ever a lot of messaging directed at boys and young men warning of the dangers of pederasty, now or in the past. In addition, I don't think the atmosphere of shame and silence around homosexuality in the past actually empowered people to resist pederasty. If anything, it gave cover to pederasts, who preyed freely on homosexual teenagers and young men, knowing that society did not see them as worthy of protection. I think things have actually gotten better - the shaming and ostracization of notorious pederasts like Kevin Spacey and Bryan Singer indicates that things are moving in the right direction.

I'm not sure what purpose excluding homosexuals would serve in that regard. Homosexual teenagers are more at risk than anyone from predation. As well as that, homosexuality is different from biological sex in that it is not readily identifiable. What are you going to do, start testing kids for homosexuality so you can start excluding them from a young age?

I mean, excluding homosexuals from certain positions obviously relies on self regulation- that much is true- but messaging regarding the dangers of homosexual predation was very frequent in times past, and plenty of organizations allowed it to inform their thinking in some way.

Obviously the Boy Scouts didn’t manage to prevent homosexual pederasts from serving as scoutmasters, but the idea that it wasn’t their intention to do so seems facially absurd.

Have you seen "Boys Beware"? The stereotype of the sinister predatory homosexual was for a time the only depiction of male homosexuals in popular media.

I was more concerned with the exclusion of adult homosexuals from spaces traditionally for men and boys.

ephebophile would be more accurate in the heterosexual context, though I've seen pederast used as a synonym

As someone who

  • hasn’t been asked to “participate,”

  • doesn’t know anyone in court over gender, let alone castration, and

  • has seen no signs of increased gay depravity…

Prove it.

From where I’m standing, the sea change comes from trans activism getting into the Overton window—and from the media realizing what a good wedge it makes. I don’t think gay rights have gotten any more invasive since gay marriage. You’re hearing more about them because the movement has picked up some easier targets.

I think I would be putting my career at risk if I made loud enough anti-gender-ideology in public schools statements. And my career has nothing to do with public schools.

Catholic schools were supposed to be my escape hatch for my kids, but apparently not even they are safe from this nonsense.

and from the media realizing what a good wedge it makes

It makes a good wedge because the bailey (the activism part) is utterly insane, but there's a pleasant motte that you can herd a lot of empathetic normies into.

It was never going to maintain it's acceleration once the normies realize what the activists actually expected of them -- now the question is whether the LGB motte can/will shed the T bailey and let the issue sink back into the obscurity it richly deserves -- or whether the wedge will keep being hammered in.

The media will just keep saying it isn't happening, the normies will forget they know it's happening, and it'll keep happening.

The media is going to ignore their favoured candidates losing elections in Virginia over it?

No, they'll say it's not happening EVEN HARDER.

There may be a lot of ruin left in the nation, but I'd say the amount left in large media organizations is becoming noticeably finite.

how obviously duped conservatives who supported this (heck even progressives) were by the propaganda

While I think there's an amount of Lizardman's Constant in the survey responses, ah yes.

People who don't agree with you are obvious dupes.

I mean, who but dupes fooled by propaganda could possibly have any objections to recognising the heroic work of such groups?

People who don't agree with you are obvious dupes.

What part of the promises of the gay-marriage promoter have been kept?

Apologies, I didn't read your comment thoroughly enough. I agree about the gay marriage propaganda bit, and thought Andrew Sullivan was being too naive (or opportunistic) in arguing that legalising gay marriage would give gay sexual activity an outlet where they didn't have to be promiscuous, that marriage would - the same way for straight men - be a civilising force. That didn't happen, and now Sullivan finds himself on the trailing edge of the Overton Window, being excoriated for his views on trans rights activism which (to me at least) echo the kind of opposition to gay rights activism, and the same jeers of "phobe! hater! ist!" were being thrown at the straights.

How does it feel, now the boot is on the other foot?

The supermajority of progressives have kept the promises. Not a single conservative, on the other hand, was able to deliver God, for one example.

  • -20

Not a single conservative, on the other hand, was able to deliver God, for one example.

I dunno, all the screaming about Roe vs Wade and "I'm getting sterilised because I'm afraid they're going to ban birth control next" seems to be some sort of signal that maybe something or other happened.

Abortion rollback is to God as progressive overreaches are to FALGSC (except of course God is less realistic).

Abortion rollback happened though, and I believe God is real, so conservatism gets a win on both there so far as I'm concerned 😀

Really? No more piss orgies? No more bathouses? No bullying of Christians into participating into gay weddings? No attempts at child indoctrination?

No more stoning? No more conversion camps? No more "camps for troubled youths"? No more parental abuse?

Two can play the "as long as your side has even one excess you're duping us" game.

We have the conversion camps still, and camps for troubled youths. They are just run by pedos trying to trans and gay them...

You and @sun are both just engaging in low effort "I know you are but what am I"s here. Knock it off.

Has 2) actually happened? I’m willing to believe it has if anyone can provide examples, but the most that ever seems to happen over the parents’ wishes is schools using different pronouns, and every case where a parent loses custody for not being gender affirming seems to be to his ex wife.

every case where a parent loses custody for not being gender affirming seems to be to his ex wife.

Yeah, fuck dads, who gives a shit about them?

Sure, but that happens anyways- courts favoring the woman even when it doesn’t make sense is not a feature of trans ideology, it’s just the way it is.

Losing access to your kids because "bitches be crazed" or whatever will make a guy mad, sure -- but as you say is something people are pretty used to.

Losing access to your kid and watching him/her sterilized and scarred for life kind of raises the ante is all. Seeing this happen to other people seems not unlikely to calcify political opinions on the underlying issue.

Yes. Or at least the mother claims it has: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12221449/California-mom-claims-19-year-old-daughter-murdered-gender-ideology.html

Additional quote:

Why are there so many transgender in foster care? Because this state take them from their families, tells them to run, then steals them

I don't know how many is "so many" - but it suggests it happened more than once.

ex wife.

A mentally ill ex wife getting to control decisions of a potentially mentally ill teenager seems to be a particular failure mode of the courts here. There is no sane legal system where this would happen. And when people notice a normal dad losing a custody battle to an insane mom, that is, indeed, a broken promise the gay advocates made.

If momma is mentally ill, the game is over already. This is not the legal system's fault.

When two parents split, one parent must have ultimate authority over the kid. For well and good reasons, this is usually the mom. For there never to be an bad outcome like this, courts have to be able to divine who is sane with 100% accuracy, which is obviously impossible.

The legal system prior to transgenderism also did this, regularly.

Like you can argue that dads should get a fairer shake in custody battles, but it’s not because of trans ideology that they don’t.

Taken individually, no single law in any state completely strips parents’ rights over the care and mental health treatment of their troubled minor teens. But pieced together, laws in California, Oregon, and Washington place troubled minor teens as young as 13 in the driver’s seat when it comes to their own mental health care—including “gender affirming” care—and renders parents powerless to stop them.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/when-the-state-comes-for-your-kids

Article presents an example of a 14 year old checking into a youth center and parents unable to retrieve them despite no cps investigation.

One mother I spoke with had had Child Protective Services called on her by her own therapist, after she had explained in therapy why she had chosen not to “affirm” her young trans-identified teen daughter. In that instance, the mom said, the social worker accepted the mother’s explanation that this did not constitute abuse. She counts herself lucky.

In that instance, the mom said, the social worker accepted the mother’s explanation that this did not constitute abuse.

If the California bill passes, that will in future be recognised as abuse (amended parts in italics):

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 957

Introduced by Assembly Member Wilson

(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)

February 14, 2023

An act to amend Section 3011 of the Family Code, relating to family law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 957, as amended, Wilson. Family law: gender identity.

Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings and requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among other things the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 3011 of the Family Code is amended to read:

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:

(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.

(2) (A) A history of abuse by one parent or another person seeking custody against any of the following:

(i) A child to whom the parent or person seeking custody is related by blood or affinity or with whom the parent or person seeking custody has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.

(ii) The other parent.

(iii) A parent, current spouse, or cohabitant of the parent or person seeking custody, or a person with whom the parent or person seeking custody has a dating or engagement relationship.

(B) (i) As a prerequisite to considering allegations of abuse, the court may require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.

(ii) As used in this paragraph, “abuse against a child” means “child abuse or neglect” as defined in Section 11165.6 of the Penal Code.

(iii) Abuse against another person, as described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), means “abuse” as defined in Section 6203.

(3) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046.

(4) (A) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol or prescribed controlled substances by either parent. Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services.

(B) As used in this paragraph, “controlled substances” has the same meaning as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code).

(5) (A) When allegations about a parent pursuant to paragraph (2) or (4) have been brought to the attention of the court in the current proceeding and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record. In these circumstances, the court shall ensure that an order regarding custody or visitation is specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 6323.

(B) This paragraph does not apply if the parties stipulate in writing or on the record regarding custody or visitation.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interests of the child.

The joke going around is that Senator Weiner is this guy (he's the one not in a harness, at the Folsom Street Fair).

I suppose I'm taking the most extreme, cynical view here but on a cursory reading in a custody dispute, if parent A is the stable one but refuses to maintain that Johnny is now Susie, and parent B is a drug-addled wreck whose house is a rubbish dump but goes "Sure, Johnny's a chick now!", then B gets custody.

But surely that could never happen.

The Daily Mail had a better headline for that story,

Four kids aged between 5 and 10 taken into care after being found at a drag party with a dead trans woman's body on the floor and drugs and sex toys scattered throughout 'hoarder' home

The Boston cops said that the earlier stories were exaggerated, I think four kids in an apartment with a dead body and (probably) drugs being taken is enough.

There's also the latest 'it would never happen so stop saying it would, bigots, there is no such thing as a slippery slope' story to come out, but to be fair, it's hard enough on trans people without holding them accountable for politicians as well.

This is part of my beef with the uncritical 'fly the new Progress flag' acceptance and probably why that poll showed slipping support for gay marriage: until and unless the 'trans community' - if there is such a thing - comes to grips with 'okay, not every person who claims to be trans is indeed not mentally ill and is genuinely trans and it's not a fetish, so yeah there needs to be some sort of procedure in place and it's not medical gatekeeping to insist that simply saying 'yeah I'm a girl now' and trying to grow out your hair is not enough', then shit like this will keep happening, and ordinary people will start pushing back harder, and then the 'it's transphobia and trans genocide, protect our trans kids!' cries will get louder in response.

EDIT: How could anyone misgender this perfectly valid woman, unless it was out of bigotry and transphobia? (Yeah, that's snarky but for feck's sake 'she' is not even making an effort).

Look into some of the things they’re teaching kids in public schools. Or what happens when your kid chooses to be trans. They can give your kid a new name, and he can live his entire school day as the other gender. They don’t need to tell you anything. In some states, once you find out, any hint of rejection of the new trans identity is grounds for them taking your kids away via CPS.

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