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.

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.

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.

She's a credentialed clinical psychologist. If that doesn't matter unless enough people have heard about her, why do we bother with credentials? Also, how many people, exactly, would need to have heard about her for it to matter? Maybe I can solve the issue with some targeted ads.

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