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 -
"The motte" is a position that's true, but trivial in it's implications. The reason no one engages with them is that it says nothing interesting, and because half the time they're only there as a place to retreat to when your more interesting claims are under attack. You might have meant a "steelman". But is there a steelman to "LGBT advocacy"? The term is so vague it can include anything from promoting tolerance to abolishing cisheteronormative patriarchy or sexual liberation of everyone including children. Which one should he focus on? The first one? Why? We've left tolerance behind long ago, and whatever it is people are fighting for now definitely is not tolerance.
It's a bit weird for you to complain about strawmen, and then say something like this in the same post. The claim, the way I understand it, is that it doesn't make sense to apply a term defining sexuality to a pre-sexual child.
The problem here is that even if you think something valuable can be taught by teachers explaining sex to children, the fact that a significant portion of parents supports these laws means they no longer trust the teachers. Anyone effectively saying "you shouldn't be allowed to not trust us" rather than trying to win back trust is going to be suspect.
Maybe you’re right. It was late and not my best work.
I chose “motte” because I do believe opponents are playing a motte/bailey game. The uncontroversial claim is that the bill is a CW salvo against gay people. That’s enough reason for most bill-opponents to be upset, but I wouldn’t call it a steelman, because it’s not actually a defense, merely a justification.
There is definitely a bailey where bill-opponents want to do specific things blocked by the bill. Especially counseling and advocacy. These are controversial, and bill-supporters are right to home in on them, even as bill-opponents retreat to the motte.
But the last chunk of the OP goes much further! In the analogy, “froth at the mouth” advocates are cornering children for sexually explicit conversations. This is obviously terrible. It’s more extreme than Drag Queen Story Hour or whatever else the OP could actually find. It assumes the conclusion, and makes up a gross example when reality doesn’t provide.
Notice that the analogy starts from the premise that same-sex attraction is like obsession with monster trucks or unicorns. Is this something a bill-opponent would recognize as their own position?
If that’s not a strawman, I don’t know what is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link