Illiberalism and Social Media Toxicity
In some ways, it's annoying that people are still talking about AGPgate. But it's happening for a reason. The debate is revealing something important about the culture wars, and that something is not that some people want to defend gender nonconformity and others prefer that men eschew dresses.
That something is that some of us are fighting illiberalism—I count myself in that group—while others are fighting something else. “Transgenderism,” perhaps, for lack of a better word.
Obviously, there's overlap—otherwise there wouldn't be confusion. I'm against the parts of transgender discourse that seem to require lying, denying reality, invading others' privacy, and imposing rules on speech (to name a few). I’m not mad at adults who’ve succumbed to dysphoria. I'm not mad at my disenchanted transsexual friend for managing his past medical choices in the best way he knows how. I’m not mad at a man who calls himself a man while wearing a dress.
Many years ago, in the throes of a blood pressure-raising debate on some ancient platform like Facebook, I made a decision. I would no longer debate online, especially on forums that facilitated only short-form arguments. I would instead write long articles, or a book, where I could properly articulate the nuances of my position. Then, I might engage with those who'd bothered to read the whole thing. Those conversations would surely be more intelligent and less heated. Mostly, I've kept to that promise.
Then, for the purposes of promoting my book, I created a Twitter account. I'll use it to post book reviews, links to articles, and musings on music, I told myself.
Well, you know the rest.
My recent comments on AGPgate inspired wildly different responses, often in the same thread. Half the commenters accused me of worshipping trans people, being a sexual libertine, and destructive levels of progressiveness. The other half accused me of hating trans people, being a Handmaid's Tale-supporting prude, and promoting fascism.
How is this possible? People are knee-jerk reactionaries. They are tribal. They are nuance- and humor- and irony-challenged.
We evolved in a world where we learned something valuable from every interaction with another human being. There were a few hundred people in our midst, tops, and we lived with them or near them. We had to guess what they were up to and how to best address them. They might be trying to date us. They might be trying to steal our stuff. They might wage war, offer us firewood or show up for dinner. By trial and error, we figured them out. Debating with this one person inspired a friendship. Arguing with this other person launched a family feud. Those people were friendly to trade with. These people were best left alone.
Even later, when our networks expanded with the development of cities, civic duties kept us connected. Planning and zoning required civil dialog. Politicians needed rules for fair debate. Gentleman's agreements allowed the safe expression of differing views.
We no longer live in that world.
The me that's evolved with real human beings expects a fair fight. The suggestion that I harbor an unresolved lust for Phil, for example, is clearly a strawman attack. A logical fallacy. If called on it, the commenter will be forced to concede and start engaging in good faith, or lose face and reputation.
That me is wrong. The online world connects me to hundreds of thousands of people. Many don't know about logical fallacies and the rules of debate. They get “likes” for knee-jerk reactions. Tribalism gains them followers. There's no room for nuance in 280 characters. Some aren't smart enough to catch humor or irony. Some are mean. Some are crazy. Some are 13 years old.
What a place to fight illiberalism.
Even if I argue one online opponent into submission, until he recants or flees—which does happen on occasion—two more will rise up in his place like hydra.
Social media is not merely bad for the blood pressure. It is an unnatural world that demands a rewiring of our brains. It is a place of abject malice, an unprecedented exercise in futility, a waste of our precious 4000 weeks on this earth.
Just to say, I read your substack (and listen to your longform interviews) for the nuance. I really appreciate that you offer me your thought out perspectives. All the short form is noise. Keep up the excellent work. Thank you.
My overwhelming impression that gender ideology is just one battlefield of the current culture war rather than a standalone issue. Another very salient battlefield that has just flared up is anti-zionism where self-described progressives are promoting the side of the conflict with flagrantly worse human rights record because they are the "designated victim". There are plenty of other fronts to the war such as "decolonising" countries like Australia & USA.
If you are familiar with Wesley Yang he has coined the term "successor ideology" as a label for this movement. Whatever the correct label is that is what I have turned up to fight. "Cultural Marxism" is another label - but one that is very loaded (although in my opinion it is in fact a perfectly accurate in pure descriptive terms). Perhaps the baggage that comes with it is why WY adopted new terminology.