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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"A man, who is born attracted to men, should be allowed to date/see/marry/sex with men" and "a man who is* born in the wrong body and should be able to transition to a women" don't seem contradictory to me, thought I do admit that they do seem in conflict.
Isn't the explanation: "both are innate, and should be allowed"? They are both a quality/innateness you're "born with" and cannot change.
If you can change your mind on these things, then they aren't innate.
Thus why detransitioners (and people who "decide" not to be gay anymore?) are seen as such traitors?
The point is not what should/shouldn't be allowed. The point is that progressives say that one reason gay conversion therapy is bad is because it doesn't even work.
However gender identity is more biological than sexual preferences but progressives belive societal conditioning is so strong it is able to get women in men's bodies to behave like men for decades of their lives, to the point that they often didn't even realise they were women in men's bodies until they were like 25+.
In that case what stops the possibility of societal conditioning being used to get people who are actually gay to behave like they are straight, especially for those people who are questioning their sexual preferences and are unsure (i.e. gay conversion therapy should work)?
Note that this argument is completely distinct from whether we should be doing gay conversion therapy or not, it's just arguing about the efficiency of it, it's a "can" vs "ought to" distinction.
huh. thats a good argument, thank you for replying. It does make me think.
though idk if i can use this as an argument in a SF party, but at least personally this makes a lot of sense.
Basically, we need to accept trans cuz conditioning is really strong to remain in your born-with gender (or is it sex?). So if it’s so strong that you are convinced you are born in the right body, despite internal claimed incongruities, then….
yeah it makes sense to me
for ex. I did theatre, and even the straights were bicurious and kinda convinced that “don’t knock it until you try it”. but mostly everyone was in straight relationships.
the few that were convinced to try, man or woman, all honestly remained straight and date/married straight partners. Looking back, I honestly think their even experimenting was some pressure, but mostly result of so called “gay propaganda”.
More options
Context Copy link
Childhood as gay conversion therapy does work: some people only realize they are gay in college. They gather the usual evidence, "women don't interest me" plus "wow that man makes me feel things", but without gayness as a model it just gets lost in the evidential noise of daily life.
The problem is that once you have the model of gayness, you can't exactly erase your memory and redo childhood. So it is a viable conversion therapy, possibly the only viable one, but it is not one that can be applied to a person it has already failed for.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some people are born pedophiles, they should still be locked up and at the very least heavily monitored if they ever molest children.
good point. born psychopaths are still psychos and are bad for society
More options
Context Copy link
That seems unrelated: there's a difference between a partner and a victim.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve never liked born that way as an argument for allowing things. It’s irrelevant. People can be born with proclivities to all sorts of behaviors— drug use, thrill seeking, self isolation, intellectual pursuits, and taste in food and clothing. That they’re attracted to something doesn’t answer the question of whether it’s good. It’s good to be studious. It’s bad to be a drug user. Drug use costs the user, his social network, and society quite a bit.
good point. In the same vein, I remember the “even some animals are gay, so being gay is natural and fine” argument.
even as a kid I remember reading about how wild ducks rape, their their vaginas become more “anti-rape” and male penises also evolved to overcome that and can still rape.
I remember saying “oh so since animals rape, rape is natural and fine?” and of course it was kind if a shut-down argument, no real retort there. Need to bring it back!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think maybe the appearance of conflict comes from imagining someone who says 'I am attracted to women, but that person who is calling themself a woman is not the type of person I am attracted to, they are faking and must be a man'.
Of course, stated like that, the answer is pretty obvious: you don't have to be attracted to every woman, and your attraction is not necessary to validate their identity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link