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 think you've misunderstood the "this isn't a big deal" argument.
The claim is that it isn't a big deal for you (the person opposed to whatever relevant agenda being pushed) to go along with it, but that the issue is important for the purported victim group.
For example - the pronoun case.
The progressive believes that if you don't respect trans people's pronouns, it will be traumatic to them, as you reject a fundamental part of their identity, and hence invalidate them as an individual - it's a form of violence (this manifests through, amongst other things, trans people actually killing themselves).
On the other hand if you just called her "she", despite not actually believing in the underlying philosophical framework of gender identity you um... oh wait, it doesn't cost you anything actually! (We all say things we don't believe in from time to time, that's called politeness)
It's basically the same idea as "it's impossible to be neutral in the face of oppression". One side is merely asking to be able to exist (see slogans like "trans genocide", "BLM", etc) whilst the other is not in any real danger: they're just edgy teens, ignorant bigots, and pearl-clutching church ladies.
That's the motte. The bailey is that it's one side of a strategic asymmetric rule similar to Dreher's law of merited impossibility ("that's not happening and it's good that it is"). Not a big deal if you comply, but a massive deal if you push back. @WhiningCoil had a great post about it in the why-is-it-always-vidya arena, talking about game mods which remove current-year stuff:
I haven't seen a pithy summary of this strategy. It doesn't really fit under кто кого. Maybe "it's not a big deal except that it is"?
That technique is also used.
But here I'm talking about the completely logically coherent argument that the struggles faced by the in-group simply are more serious (for object-level reasons particular to a specific issue) than the outgroup:
If we do X:
If we do Y:
But in all cases, this isn't some kind of Bailey. The progressives openly admit to holding this view. If you're convinced that the outcomes of X/Y are as above (perhaps it's marginally worse for outgroup if we do Y), then it's completely reasonable, even if you belong to the outgroup, to do Y.
There is no doublethink, merited impossibility, etc going on here. It's a disagreement on the object-level.
Isn't this just a rephrasing of Merited Impossibility?
Hm, maybe it is. I initially thought Merited Impossibility was more about noticing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, everyone misses the vital "it's costless for the oppressor, but infinitely beneficial/costly for the oppressed" framing used to get a foot in the door. It seamlessly transitions to "ok it's costly for the oppressor, but hurting them is actually good", but the initial push always relies on the "simple politeless reducing social friction" argument.
I'm not sure anyone's found a way to argue against it yet, and it's always too late once the rule is established.
"It's not costless to me, compelled speech is my one issue"
That's a valid rebuttal.
But I think most progressives genuinely struggle to believe people feel so strongly about free speech/compelled speech. I think this also contributes to them distrusting liberals who oppose the trans agenda - to them it sounds like you're just making up excuses to hurt people's feelings.
As I've drifted away from progressivism, I have come to believe that some people really do feel a deep level of discomfort and "ickiness" from being forced to say something they don't believe is true to avoid punishment - from observing non-woke people in real life and reading forums like this.
But personally I really don't think I can relate. I've read the stirring prose explaining how it's every man's natural right to be able to speak his own truth, etc. But I just don't feel it.
When I call a trans person their preferred pronoun, I'm not an emasculated liar, at least not any more than everyone else who is alive today and not part of some remote uncontacted tribe: whether you like it or not, you are totally controlled by society.
If the government says tomorrow that we have to eat bugs and live in a pod, there's actually nothing you or I could do about it (either we comply, or there's an escalating series of negative incentives that culminate in death) - the only reason we don't have to do that is because society doesn't want us to do that right now.
All of our freedoms are privileges that the establishment grants us - whilst morally you could argue X is a right, in practice, the government can take X away if they want to, and believe it won't lead to a revolt.
My question to you, and to anyone else that sees the compelled speech thing as a genuine issue - why do you feel this way? Why is this such a big issue for you? Can't you just tell people, who've made it abundantly clear they aren't interested in hearing your actual opinion, what they want to hear?
You're on the verge verge of understanding the importance of 2A to the people you described.
And yes, I don't want to tell lies. They chip away at an important part of myself.
More options
Context Copy link
...Uh, that's, um... a pretty big difference in perspective right there, for sure.
What's your feelings about this quote:
Bolding for emphasis. Does that just read as empty rhetorical flourishes to you? Does it seem too old and out-of-context to be relevant?
Because government derives inextricably from consent of the governed, and rulers losing sight of that, and people allowing them to, is very, very dangerous for everyone involved. Society is innately cooperative; compulsion, whether of word or thought or action breaks that cooperation. Some compulsion is always necessary, but there comes a point where it's too much, against too many, and at that point society ruptures. Maintaining society means maintaining the peace and cooperation, and keeping the compulsion strictly limited. People who don't see the need to limit compulsion are like a person lighting cigarettes in the middle of a gunpowder factory: a danger to themselves and others.
Well sort of, yes (but I freely admitted that already)
They read as "empty" to me because - like all rhetoric involving "rights" - it fails to consider the part where, in the process of separate individuals living in a shared society seeking out their God-given right to Freedom, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, etc, these "rights" come into conflict with one another.
The reason this quote (and countless others isomorphic to it) sounds so appealing is because it basically just says that the writer endorses maximising goodness in the world. To attack the weakest part - consider the phrase "pursuit of happiness", this describes literally everyone who wants something bad enough (Indeed, most trans people feel very happy when society uses their pronouns)
But to address the bold part - the fact the people have the "right" to abolish a tyrannical government is meaningless - rights, obligations, etc only make sense on the personal scale. Once we consider entire nations, in the absence of a higher power, stuff just happens, and we all have to go along with it.
In terms of emotion, it does resonate with me a bit (despite what I said above, obviously I think it's a good thing if we live in a world where people are free, and can pursue their bliss) - it presents only one side of the issue, ignoring the trade-offs (as all good propaganda does).
But I can do that with basically any issue. Since this started with progressivism, here's a pretty popular quote for leftists: "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” - James Baldwin
I mean this sounds pretty reasonable. Baldwin is happy to have an open debate, just so long as you don't dehumanise him. And I'm sure there's no way two reasonable people will disagree as to what constitutes "dehumanisation"
Yes I agree there's a limit to how much you can mistreat people before something gives.
I even think that the trans issue could end up being an important part of a rupture. However that would be through the part where a parent has their child taken away from them for refusing to affirm their new gender and consent on the child's behalf to HRT/puberty blockers (This is an actual problem I have with the trans movement - aggrieved would be an understatement if that happened to me in the future)
But forcing us to use trans people's pronouns (and hence lie)? No, not really. Maybe people might complain about it on internet forums and amongst close friends (I have friend who finds it annoying like you do), but I don't think they'll do anything about it.
I don't believe this is a necessary compulsion, but I think in degree, it is on a similar level to the other necessary compulsions: like not walking outside naked, not being allowed to comment on someone's disfigurement, not being allowed to voice politically incorrect opinions in general, etc.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the chulthu swims to the left, preferred pronouns may feel like a new issue, but at this point in any sufficiently big organization, it is already claimed territory by the progs. As you say in the preceding paragraph, the new thing is trans kids. I don't think the millions of Americans with compelled speech in their workplace feel very strongly about it, they are fat and lazy and have very comfortable lives, but it will be interesting to see how they deal with their kids being transed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not a new concept, even formally.
Theoretically, we could become criminals and get away with it. Many recreational drug users, for instance, have been doing this for a long time.
Yes, at the end of the day, might may not make right, but it is still might. But that doesn't mean our freedoms are privileges granted by the mighty; to say so IS to accept that might makes right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that didn't even work here, as the new "use preferred pronouns" rule shows. It's certainly not going to work anywhere else. The obvious reply is "that sounds like a you problem."
"That sounds like a you problem" is also the obvious rebuttal to trans people wanting different pronouns used for them. If (general) you don't respect my psychological comfort, why should I respect yours?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where I resent this framing is that it expects of people in terms of execution, while encouraging people to view every mistake as offensive.
My father occasionally calls me by the following names, especially if under pressure/upset: the first name of his handyman/carpenter, the first name of an employee he fired in 2013, the name of our dog that died in 2008. This does not reflect either that he doesn't know who I am or does not approve of the first name he gave me, just that his brain misfires.
Before we get into any conversation about misgendering, what does the naive error rate in use of gendered language look like? Do people use he instead of she, his instead of hers, on a purely mistaken basis at a 1% rate? A 5% rate? It isn't zero. Now ask them to execute a lie, against their basic instinct, 5,000+ times a day, that error rate will swell.
If trans people are "actually killing themselves" the blood is probably as much on the hands of people who tell them misgendering is offensive, as it is on the hands of those who misgender. Trans people are going to live a hard life one way or another, if they are to be helped the first thing they are going to need to learn is resilience.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm unsure if you're endorsing the trans-inclusive paradigm, or simply describing it. If the former - I generally try to respect trans people's preferred pronouns within reason, but the idea that a failure to do so (even a malicious, knowing, intentional failure to do so) is denying the right of trans people to exist is preposterous.
I'm describing (the entire comment is attempting to more accurately explain/steel man the thinking that goes behind the "not a big deal" argument)
But I have heard this idea expressed by an actual friend in real life (in the form of the phrase "trans genocide") - and similarly find it a bit silly. So I'll try and steel man it:
You already did the first part of the steel man, as you changed "deny the existence" to "deny the right to existence", which is what is actually meant.
Under the framework of trans ideology, we all have a gender identity. This doesn't manifest in any physical manner (you may be a woman but have a penis and XY chromosomes) - but it is real in the sense that, if you try and ignore/suppress it, you will experience "gender dysphoria" (i.e. pain, like if I try and ignore my left arm and it smashes into a door frame)
But beyond this, your gender identity forms a key component of who you are as a human being, to express and have it affirmed is a necessary condition to be your "true self". When a trans person gets to live as their real gender (opposite to their sex), they experience "gender euphoria".
Before that moment, they were merely living a pathetic shadow of a life, forced to play act as something they were not - now they are their authentic self, it borders on the spiritual. If that sounds crazy to you, that's only because you never had the misfortune of having a sex-gender mismatch - it's hard to appreciate water when you've never been thirsty.
So when you refuse to affirm their gender you deny them of having a truly fulfilling existence - they can never actually be themself*
*Whilst the first paragraph is completely standard progressive theory, I am putting words into their mouths a bit with the later parts (I don't think I've ever read anyone say what I said there, but I do get the sense that a lot of people believe this on some level, based on personal interactions, hearing activists, and terms like "gender euphoria")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see. So the demand is that we be closeted about our beliefs -- that we're free to have them, but never to express them in public? This is a form of conquest of the mind;
Imagine if atheism were treated the same way. You're free to not believe, but you must never take the Lord's name in vain in public, or blaspheme in any other way, because it mortally offends the Christians. We would not consider this standard to be acceptable.
Do you know what I consider polite? Not laying claim to the speech of everyone around me to shore up my own identity. Not making my problems into everyone's responsibility -- THAT'S politeness.
...and to control the language use of everyone around them.
Precisely. I'm personally against this now, because I think the current transgender movement is, at best, not improving the state of society, and I don't want any of my future children to be transgender.
However I don't really have a problem with this on the meta-level: when I used to agree with the trans movement, I happily and sincerely endorsed this unwritten rule, as I (and it would seem, most progressives) don't really care about free speech.
I think you're half right. I think that progressives believe this is the case (but obviously they can't say this the way you have, it sounds awfully 1984) - and see this as a good thing, because this "conquest" will bring about a more equitable and tolerant society.
But I'm not sure this will work out - I think that the progressive movement is going to keep pushing the boundary, until more and more people are directly affected (e.g. their child decides to become trans), and then they will end up losing a lot of objectives they considered set it stone (gay marriage, civil rights legislation, etc)
There is a limit to the amount of ruin that the public can be made to ignore by social pressure and catchy slogans.
What does "acceptable" mean? I would weakly prefer the current arrangement where I get to say I'm an atheist and take the Lord's name in vain to the hypothetical. But on a list of things that I want to change about the world, it would be pretty low down.
If someone asked me, in confidence, how I felt about the new theocracy - I'd say it's not ideal, but it's acceptable.
I disagree. Being "polite" just means conducting yourself in a manner to avoid causing conflict or offence, which in particular means obeying the societal consensus on issue X.
Further - politeness is a descriptor of personal interactions. When you meet a trans person, and you are implicitly compelled to refer to them by their preferred pronouns, they aren't doing any of the things you said - all of this was done by hundreds of activists/professors/politicians/etc over the course of about a decade preceding the interaction.
If you or someone else manages to organise some kind of grass roots activism campaign that ends up garnering enough support to revert back to the old social norms of calling trans people by their sex (unless you just want to be really "nice") - then that will become the new polite, and the trans person who "politely" insists on being called "ma'am" will become impolite.
As I said elsewhere, I was just describing a typical usage of the "not a big deal" argument (my bad for making it sound like I endorse it)
But yes, obviously the trans movement (like every other movement) asks for far more than just not literally being killed.
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds a lot like Indonesia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but Lenin put this argument much more simply; "кто кого?" or "Who/whom?". My opponents do not get to decide what's a big deal for me.
I disagree. Who/whom is a lens of pure conflict theory + post modernism (there is no objective truth, if the enemy says X, all that means is that they want me to think X is true - it has no meaning divorced from who said it)
The "not a big deal" argument is mistake theory. You talk about "a big deal for me", as though all grievances are subjective, and so all grievances are equally legitimate as I can make a problem "legitimate" by feeling really strongly about it.
In the mistake theory framework, we can objectively measure how bad any particular grievance is (by using a utility function that everyone can agree upon), and then you can argue (irregardless of which "side" you're on) that grievance A, in comparison to B, is not a big deal (not "for me/you/them", but just not a big deal, unqualified)
In each specific case, the leftist argument is that the negative utility represented by the suffering of the marginalised group is so huge, that any minor discomfort experienced by the "privileged" group is trivial in comparison.
And I think the modal leftist sincerely thinks this, and isn't trying to trick you. They believe, even in your shoes, they would espouse the same policies (The anger comes because they think that you simply don't care about trans people's well-being. That as a "transphobe", you know they're suffering but you just don't care)
There is no such utility function. In practice, if you can keep a grievance pusher in the argument long enough (i.e. they don't leave and don't get you removed), they will eventually reach "the harm to you doesn't matter but the harm to those of the grievance class do".
Yes. This is who/whom, nothing more. You can put it in "mistake theory" terms by claiming there is some sincere mistake about measurement of the harm, but that's just window dressing.
Which would match how they treat women who complain that, in fact, they do consider it a big deal. If they're merely mistaken about the relative harms why attempt to destroy anyone attempting to help them update?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link