I think this part is obvious. Regardless of anyone’s object-level opinion on circumcision, the argument “ten years ago I met one cringy person making that argument, therefore the entire cause is invalid” is bullshit.
It can still be useful to investigate why does it feel to some people (because it obviously does) that pointing out one cringy example is a sufficient argument. I suppose the reason is that there are no well-known high-status people arguing publicly against circumcision… and that is why that one cringy person ten years ago can be the first thing that actually comes to someone’s mind.
So we could go one step further and ask why are there no well-known high-status people arguing publicly against circumcision. One possibility is that this opinion is coded as low-status for some reason, and therefore people who are good at getting high status are simply smart enough to avoid it. Another possibility is that there is some active resistance, and people who express similar opinions are quickly character-assassinated. Actually each of these options invites further questions… My point is, it would make sense to investigate what actually happens when someone is publicly associated with this cause. My guess would be: the person is accused of antisemitism, and the entire debate is deflected from “circumcision, good or bad?” to “a potentially antisemitic person, should be cancelled or merely ostracized?”. But maybe I am wrong here, and the actual argument is more like: “circumcision is supported by the ScienceTM and this person is an uneducated fool”.
I think this part is obvious. Regardless of anyone’s object-level opinion on circumcision, the argument “ten years ago I met one cringy person making that argument, therefore the entire cause is invalid” is bullshit.
It can still be useful to investigate why does it feel to some people (because it obviously does) that pointing out one cringy example is a sufficient argument. I suppose the reason is that there are no well-known high-status people arguing publicly against circumcision… and that is why that one cringy person ten years ago can be the first thing that actually comes to someone’s mind.
So we could go one step further and ask why are there no well-known high-status people arguing publicly against circumcision. One possibility is that this opinion is coded as low-status for some reason, and therefore people who are good at getting high status are simply smart enough to avoid it. Another possibility is that there is some active resistance, and people who express similar opinions are quickly character-assassinated. Actually each of these options invites further questions… My point is, it would make sense to investigate what actually happens when someone is publicly associated with this cause. My guess would be: the person is accused of antisemitism, and the entire debate is deflected from “circumcision, good or bad?” to “a potentially antisemitic person, should be cancelled or merely ostracized?”. But maybe I am wrong here, and the actual argument is more like: “circumcision is supported by the ScienceTM and this person is an uneducated fool”.
The usual arguments one hears are about cleanliness.
(It’s nonsense, naturally, but that’s the standard response, in my experience.)