site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26360 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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. 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.

...Uh, that's, um... a pretty big difference in perspective right there, for sure.

What's your feelings about this quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

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?

My question to you, and to anyone else that sees the compelled speech thing as a genuine issue - why do you feel this way?

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.

What's your feelings about this quote... Does that just read as empty rhetorical flourishes to you? Does it seem too old and out-of-context to be relevant?

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"

Some compulsion is always necessary, but there comes a point where it's too much, against too many, and at that point society ruptures... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's not a new concept, even formally.

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.

Theoretically, we could become criminals and get away with it. Many recreational drug users, for instance, have been doing this for a long time.

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.

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.

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?

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