site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29683 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A significant portion of the population have these orientations, and the broad public didn’t realize how widespread it was.

Well, no.

It's pretty much always been 3-5%. The recent uptick has been because people get social status for calling themselves bi while never, ever actually engaging in bisexual behavior.

But the propaganda has worked

And this is exactly why the PMC is so insidious - it takes its preferred hyperminority positions, signal amplifies them to the moon, and then targets as immoral "literal hitlers!" anyone who doesn't pledge histrionic fealty to the issue.

Oops! I wonder what other number I was thinking of. I think the point still stands though. If we say .5% trans and 4% gay that’s an order of magnitude difference. Numbers seem to vary a good amount based on survey though.

Don't forget questioning and queer as allowing weirdos with innocent fetishes to be considered members instead of allies.

Sapiosexuals and demisexuals and aromantics all consider themselves within the LGBT+ umbrella, so they get easy entry.

The lack of internal accountability means sexual abuses in the community that are happening face disincentives to report out of concerns that the community will be discredited means the abused just retreat instead of holding the abusers accountable.

The most obvious are trannies preying on children, especially girls. Most of the community is pretty ugly so perverts focus their attention on young girls seeking an identity, and since these girls don't speak up, the ++ continue unrestricted. I have unfortunately observed a steady supply of young boys eager to pimp themselves out for rich sugar daddies flush with money and drugs, and none of my male friends who were active on grindr as teens show any regrets in their adult life.

With the lack of whistleblowers and a nebulous definition of the community, the entire circus is likely to continue growing, even if public disapproval from rebellious teens grows.

I have unfortunately observed a steady supply of young boys eager to pimp themselves out for rich sugar daddies flush with money and drugs, and none of my male friends who were active on grindr as teens show any regrets in their adult life.

AFAIK, this was common among gay men back in the days when it was illegal. John Maynard Keynes, for example, had a thing for very young men/older boys. I think the hope was that this would go away if homosexuality was normalised.

hope was that this would go away if homosexuality was normalised

What was the mechanism to accomplish this?

It's like hoping for less crime if we stop arresting and prosecuting criminals.

What was the mechanism to accomplish this?

The substitution effect (for drugs), but in reverse: you're giving up your ability to have gayness be illegal so that gay children aren't instantly arrested for that crime should they blow the whistle.

Of course, you could always pass laws to avoid that (i.e. "gay sex isn't illegal so long as you're under AoC, as after that you're expected to know it's wrong")- and we already do this for lots of crimes. But if you're starting from 'legalizing gayness as end goal' you're obviously not going to take that approach.

There were five commonly proposed mechanisms :

  • Normalization of homosexuality could make it possible to discuss abusive homosexual relationships without admitting to illegal or taboo interests as part of the complaint. The extreme case is something like Dahmer, where police literally handed an underage victim to a serial killer (though Dahmer lived in Wisconsin, where adult homosexuality was legal at the time, he'd been booted from bathhouses for drugging people and the police in question had largely been driven to a policy of not asking questions). But a lot of stuff well below that level should have gone through the courts, and was instead handled through whisper networks that were plainly not up to the task, because the victims or witnesses could have faced liability or stigma.
  • The separation from Actual Abuser and just homosexual would have made the stigma on the former more significant. Most of the documented stuff from Keynes involved people over the age of consent or who were plain adults and just younger than him, with the more serious allegations looking to be misunderstandings by more recent readers of the common terms of the time. Contrast Gajdusek or Breen's clear and known abuse of young children. But in the lingo of the day and even into the early 1990s, most public discussion (even in gay spheres!) would not distinguish the two fields, leaving far less pressure on the marginal bad actor to behave better.
  • There was a common failure mode where an outed (or afraid-of-being-outed) teenager would flee or be kicked out from their normal community, and find that a combination of personal interests and business discrimination and native contacts would lead them to crash with various unrelated gay adults, often for pretty lengthy periods of time. Sometimes these were full-blown group houses, more often they were just rooming with friends-of-friends-of-friends, whatever. Sexual relationships in these conditions would be prone to abuse even without the age disparity, but it also meant they were people who had perfectly healthy (and above-age-of-consent-the-entire-time) relationships that looked really skuzzy from Traditional Perspectives. Cleaning this process out would both reduce temptation for marginal bad actors, and more critically also remove an avenue of normalization.
  • Demographics are (and were) a bitch. For a heterosexual person, there's about one het member of the opposite sex in a five-block age range of your age for every thirty people. For a gay person before the Internet, that number was probably closer to 1:600 or 1:2400, depending on who's numbers you trust. And given the covert nature of efforts, gay men were limited in how they could go looking. While some approaches were able to concentrate all possible sexual partners, sometimes even into one room, in practice the real answer required looking very wide in one way or another, and opening that age bracket was often the only available choice. Young adults in particular have particular problems with complying with the standard rule for hets, both because of the more narrow slices and because those present were far less likely to be able to be out, be mobile, and be trying to match publicly. ((And the AIDs crisis blew up a large slice, too.))
  • For... mechanical reasons that straight people aren't going to want to hear about, there's a lot of more awkward stuff that can happen between two gay virgins than two heterosexual ones, barring pregnancy. And while that's a very big 'except', it at least involves months before the emergency room visit. Various downstream knowledge and pragmatic matters made 'gay mentor' a thing, and while a majority were genuinely in the 'leave a pamphlet and pretend the question never came up' side, it left a massive space for abuse among people who by definition would not be able to readily recognize abuses. Increased information availability in public spaces, the growth of sex toys as an available industry, and more one-to-many discussions of gay sex mechanics, all did genuinely reduce that.

A lot of this was predicated on most abusers selecting their victims by opportunity or mild preference, rather than strong preference or as obligate parts of their sexuality, and that wasn't always true. And there remain awkward edge cases that neither the gay community (nor society as a whole thinking about the het versions!) really want to handle as rules rather than on a case-by-case basis.

But it wasn't wrong, either, nor clearly wrong at the time.

A lot of that still sounds like hope.

I think the idea was that pederastic men REALLY wanted to have egalitarian relationships with men their own age, but couldn't under the conditions prior to legalisation, and would switch if these egalitarian relationships were possible.

I guess some have, sort of. Pairs of pederastic and pedophilic men can now abuse their victims together. Sometimes they even adopt their victims.

Asserting that homosexuals = pedophiles really requires evidence, not just asserting it because you really super believe it.

On the one hand, it's been months since your last ban. On the other hand, you now have a lot of warnings and bans stacked up and you've already been told that you're running out of warnings, and low effort shitting like this is pretty much all you do.

I'm giving you a 3-day ban and telling you knock it off with the naked culture warring.

For the record, there does (or at least did) exist at least one poster-boy gay couple with semi-adoptee that turned out to be child pimps.

One can very much have a debate about how common this is, though.

Sure, but asserting "Homosexual child molesters exist" is not the same thing as asserting "Homosexuals are child molesters."

More comments

The lack of internal accountability means sexual abuses in the community that are happening face disincentives to report out of concerns that the community will be discredited means the abused just retreat instead of holding the abusers accountable.

A tactical assessment that is unimpeachably correct. Everyone knows what happened to the Scouts and the Church, and because sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon, it's not going to save the LGBT if the culture shifts.

especially girls

All child gay/trans icons are biologically male, and the "straight male sexuality should be stamped out" is all coming from straight women, not "trannies" (there are so few of them that it wouldn't matter if none of them were sex pests, they're just useful examples). As such, until some internal or external circumstance forces moderation of that tendency, the entire circus will continue growing.

because sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon, it's not going to save the LGBT if the culture shifts.

Sexual abuse allegations are a superweapon in the same way that racism accusations are a superweapon. You can't actually use them against anyone; you can use them against people lower on the oppression scale.

I think "If the culture shifts" means in that world that gays, trannies, or whoever we are talking about, are no longer on the oppression scale

the oppression scale

Mean Girls 101: the more popular you are, the further beyond accountability you are, and vice versa.

Mean Girls 102: popularity is a zero-sum game.

Mean Girls 103: because you'll die by that sword regardless of whether or not you live by it, taking it up is the only rational option.

I am actually thinking of Jessica Yaniv and all the other pedophiles that claimed to be trans all while trying to gain access or actually perving on little girls. Its not straight male sexuality, its trans preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of trannies.

For me the fairly obvious point is that most modern trannies don't fucking bother to pass. They shotgun some clown makeup on and wear a dress, but put zero effort into waxing, dieting or otherwise trying to be women. If they actually looked like submissive and breedable femboys they'd get more acceptance, but modern western trannies are just ugly fatties claiming unverifiable special privilege.

Okay, you’ve got 3 posts in the mod queue about how much your outgroup sucks. Progressives this, trannies that.

I’m going to ask you to back off a bit. You can make your points without signaling disgust quite so hard.

but modern western trannies are just ugly fatties claiming unverifiable special privilege

Something they have in common with their enablers.

its trans preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of trannies

In the same way, it's female preferences and bigots should be ashamed of questioning the intention of women (room temperature for the last 40 years).
They're the same picture, it's just a lot more in your face because that's what it looks like when that privilege is extended to cover specific types of biological men. They're fargroup to straight women because they've torn their manhood off (literally or symbolically), so they don't have to worry about them trying anything (which is occasionally, per your examples, not entirely how it works in practice) and doing things like destroying women's sports and introducing men into women's prisons is not an issue to them because the consequences of doing so will only be borne by "lesser" women.

If they actually looked like submissive and breedable femboys they'd get more acceptance

Which is why the femboys that actually do this (and pass as a consequence) tend to be inherently opposed to the womanly way of asserting transgender status (i.e. by claiming it and doing nothing else).

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