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 -
I'm just glad he's right half the time. That's progress.
Anyway, yes, 'I have no problem with group X, I'm just really worried about (blood libel against group X), why can't we talk about that?' can be a frustrating thing for the few people who actually mean it. The problem is that 99% of the people who want to talk about the blood libel against group X don't mean that, they just want to destroy group X by any means necessary, and the antibodies society has formed against them on that basis are right and correct. It sucks if you get caught up in the inflammatory response unfairly, but, that's immune systems for you.
But, anyway: the reason that we don't talk about that stuff is because it happens once or twice across the whole nation, or it's already flatly illegal and there are already policies in place to correct it, or the other side already agrees with simple policies to address it, or it has nothing to do with the topic at hand in the first place.
If bathroom policies come up, and one side says trans women should use the women's room, and the other side says 'it should be illegal for cis men to go into the women's room', then congratulations! Both sides agree 100% on what should happen, and can start talking about optimal policies to accomplish it.
But the side that says they're worried about cis men entering women's bathrooms never sounds like they're 100% in agreement with the trans activists and ready to work together on policy proposals, funnily enough. They say they're just against something that teh trans activists are also against, but it sounds like they're trying to oppose trans women using women's restrooms at all. That's certainly what the laws they propose and pass say!
Same for the rest of it. If your point were to agree with trans-activist policies on what happens to trans women, and just wanted to shore up the edges to guard against bad cis actors, there'd be no disagreement. In reality, the people bringing up these issues are trying to curtail rights for trans women, that's why they're bothering to mention it whenever the topic of trans rights comes up. Society is not wrong to notice this coincidence, and group them on that side of the issue.
[And if you insist that Freddie needs a principled reason to treat trans discussion differently from HBD discussions along this axis, the answer is incentives. There's currently a ton of policy leverage, votes from republicans, and money for pundits in anti-trans rhetoric; there's currently very little money//power available for people making HBD claims. That's because society considers the latter a generally-closed issue, and the former is central to right-now-today culture war fights and political campaigns. So the incentive for a grifter to pretend 'I have no problem with trans rights, I just worry about males rapists' is many orders of magnitude stronger than for a grifter to pretend 'I have no problem with black people, I just worry about meritocracy being preserved' or w/e. Along with the orders of magnitude stronger incentive for anti-trans grifters making that argument dishonestly come the orders of magnitude more people actually doing it, which is why the prior probability on someone saying those things being a grifter you should ignore or condemn is also orders of magnitude higher.]
If you're accusing me of blood libelling trans people, I'm curious to know what in my post constitutes a blood libel.
Honestly, I think Freddie is almost exactly as evasive about HBD as he is about the trans issue.
I've already explicitly stated (in the OP and in a comment replying to you) that I don't really have an issue with gender-neutral bathrooms. As I also pointed out in the OP, it's not the fault of gender-critical people that there's no reliable way to distinguish between trans women and cis male bad actors. Setting up a standard in which a trans woman is anyone who claims to be one and trans women are under no obligation to communicate that they identify as women by presenting themselves in a conspicuously feminine way is a recipe for disaster. No one should be labelled a bigot for the crime of being unable to read minds.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link