site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27509 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That would seem to somewhere marginalise the concept of child development, which we have consistently taken into account in applying other restrictions on choice as a society, alcohol, driving, joining the army.

But I can see the framing as being sufficient at a first, say libertarian, brush.

The problem of course, as you point to, is that the systems of trust advising on these matters are captured and are being grossly negligent in providing accurate information.

I kind of see myself at a privileged place in history, in that it's actually really easy to get information. 10 hours of reading on substack will get you all you need to know to have a visceral experience of concern. In the past, the systems of trust were limited. Also we understand biases and self deception much better than previous generations.

I met the parent of a three year old who told me their child gets to decide every day if she is a boy or a girl. Schools are responding to this Manchausens by proxy parental abuse by... obliging them... Surely an average person would look at this and say, hmmmm, that's not right? Are three year olds now masters of their own destiny?

That’s one thing that always got me with this issue. Any attempt to talk about trans-kids as kids, of comparing this desire of kids (which must never be questioned) with other things kids believe about themselves, or are capable of understanding about how things work is notably absent. Kids can, one one hand, be coerced into participating in things for peer pressure, family pressure, as a cope for other problems, or simply because the culture says it’s cool, and everyone understands that the adults need to be there as a backstop to keep them from going nuts. A six year old who wants to be a baseball player when he grows up is assumed to be going through a phase and chided for skipping homework to play ball in the sandlot. A six year old who wants to be a Klingon is told to not watch so much TV.

And adults likewise understand much better than kids that some decisions simply cannot be undone. Often this sort of thing is protected by law. Children are not allowed tattoos because we know that kids can’t understand that some decisions are unchangeable and therefore we don’t let them make them. We don’t allow kids to request an amputation and peg leg or eye removal. We don’t allow kids to do dangerous things that can result in life-changing injury. We limit work and other activities and force kids to go to school because those decisions are too important to be decided by a small child.

Yes exactly - I think it's a sure sign of a mania when we abandon long-established understandings about child development without any reason. If anything neuroscience has shown development (particularly frontal cortex, critical for being able to make judgements with long term consequences) goes on much longer than we had though.

This new thinking goes against known understandings and norms in child development psychology, medical ethics, education and culture broadly. Its a huge clue we're in a mania.

There is also a ship of Theseus problem when it comes to human beings. It seems especially acute in kids. Actions a twelve year old takes can seriously impact a 30 year old being that is functionally a different being. Should we permit a 12 year old to do that? We’ve answered no in most things because we understand 12 year olds don’t have the wherewithal to make those kind of decisions. I don’t see why trans issues should go against the default; if anything it is an issue that should be more definite.

I mean there’s a good deal of scientific research on how the human brain develops from infancy to adulthood, while it’s not perfect as it could be because of individual differences in development, we can roughly understand just how much freedom a twelve year old can actually handle on his own.

Still, I can't think of any interventions where the benefit of that intervention is worth the costs and the precedents it sets.

Sorry for the spam, but here's another one if you don't like bans. This actually got implemented in some states: insurance that covers transition, has to cover costs of detransition. Another one is that doctors that diagnose you with dysphoria can be held liable if the diagnosis turns out to be wrong.

insurance that covers transition, has to cover costs of transition

Did you mean to say “detransition” the second time there?

Yes, thanks!

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