site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36203 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're not wrong that a clear double standard seems to be opening up around accusing posters on here of being "groomers." I feel like naraburns crossed a line when he wrote:

Do you honestly advocate for distributing such things to children? If so, you're a groomer, too...

This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left. It's completely reasonable for you to be angry about this, particularly since it is coming from a moderator. When you're in charge of maintaining the rules, you'd best try not to break them.

With that said, I think the way you're going about trying to call it out is unproductive. I know it's frustrating to have to pay attention to fine distinctions when your interlocutor is going out of their way to blur them in order to smear you. The thing is, though, if you're going to try to make a post in favour of better enforcement of the rules then you, too, are going to be subject to greater scrutiny in your own behaviour, just as moderators are. So you need to not accuse naraburns of saying things he didn't say. The things he did say are the things you need to be complaining about. He didn't directly accuse people who disagree with him of being pedophiles, he accused them of being groomers. That's bad enough.

Of course, you may not actually be trying to call for better rule enforcement, here. You seem to simply be blowing off steam. That's a shame, because I would like to call for naraburns to commit to not calling people names for disagreeing with him, and, unfortunately, your post risks overshadowing my point.

You calling someone a racist out of the blue to discredit their post about a Muslim politician's corruption is quite different from nara trying to define "groomer", which was the topic of conversation itself.

I would like to call for naraburns to commit to not calling people names for disagreeing

Sure, I commit to not calling people names for disagreeing.

You're twisting my words. Will you commit to not (pre-emptively or otherwise) calling posters "groomers" because they disagree with you about which materials are appropriate for which age groups?

You're twisting my words.

When you quoted the passage you objected to, why did you elide the qualifier, "by every definition offered in the thread thus far?"

Well, anyway, it was still an unforced error, and you should be able to see my apology to PM, such as it is, above.

I don't think that's a fair request.

If I call someone a groomer for showing porn to a 5 year old, technically I'm also doing it only because I disagree which materials are appropriate for which age groups.

No, you are using that term because you think the person has nefarious purposes. In fact, a pedophile probably agrees that the material is inappropriate, because what does "inappropriate" mean if not "likely to sexualize the child" or something to that effect, which is precisely the pedophile's goal.

Why do progressives insist on putting words in other peoples mouths? Would you also accept my interpretation of your intentions?

No, I'm using the term because I think the action is purposeful, and aims to change the worldview of vulnerable and impressionable people.

  1. I am not a progressive

  2. ?? So, you ARE using that term because you think the person has nefarious purposes.

  1. Well, it's all relative I guess.

  2. Nope, please quote the part that implies any malicious intent?

More comments

Pedophiles seem to believe the exact opposite, that children are "naturally" sexual, and that they're being kind by sneaking them materials behind the back of mean old oppressive society.

Critically, this attitude also seems common in porn-brained, sex-positive progressives who had access to hardcore pornography from age 10 themselves.

But again, they are agreeing with the meaning attached by society to the term, "inappropriate" -- ie, likely to sexualize children. They just see it as a positive.

Well, note below that I'm not trying to outlaw reasoned explanations of why a given act is abusive or likely to prepare someone to be abused. We can still discuss why porn is inappropriate for 5 year olds.

So why can't we discuss why queer theory might not be appropriate for elementary school?

We certainly can discuss this. Do you need to call other posters "groomers" if they disagree with you about which aspects of gender theory are and are not appropriate for elementary school, in order to have that conversation? I don't see why you would. Even if you think the description is accurate and you want to convey that, you could just as easily say something like "Teaching this will make children more vulnerable to sexual abuse" or "Teaching this is abusive in itself, because [explanation]," without needing to call people names to make your point.

I don't need to, and I don't think I ever did.

I kind of think the same rules should apply here, as to the word "racist". Calling someone a racist/groomer to their face should be discouraged on this forum, but the same way it's ok to talk about the problem of racism in the society, it should be ok to discuss the problem of grooming in schools and activism.

More comments

This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left.

As I recall, the way moderators here have handled inflammatory opinions in the past is to require them to use the minimum level of heat necessary to get their point across. So I think the first hurdle to be crossed in saying this comment was outside the normal standard of behavior here would be to describe how this could have been presented in a less inflammatory manner.

"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse" is not a nice thing to say but I have trouble thinking of a way to make it nicer without eliding the opinion it is trying to express.

How do you think naraburns' comments could have been said in a nicer way?

Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse,

There is a difference between saying 1) Providing sexual material to children is dangerous because it renders them vulnerable to abuse; and 2) Providing sexual material to children is done for the purpose of making them vulnerable to abuse,

Calling someone a pedophile implies #2, and it is the accusation of intentionally harming children which makes the claim problematic.

Absolutely, there's a big difference between the two. But I believe it's clear that naraburns was doing 1), with perhaps a side of "and not knowing this will cause them to be vulnerable to abuse is willful ignorance". I won't clutter the thread repeating it but I've put my explanation of why I think this in response to gemmaem's post below.

Well, naraburns also says that his use of the term was an "unforced error"

And, besides, I was referring to your claim, not naraburn's.

The section of my post you quoted from was my summary of naraburns' claims, not a claim I'm making.

When I want to talk about racism, I'm not held to the standard you're asking me to hold naraburns to. I don't get to call people "racist" just because they meet my definition of racism. I have to be very, very careful about using the word at all, and avoid the more disputed definitions thereof. If I can't say it in a nicer way than that, then I just don't get to say it.

With that said, you have yourself provided a less inflammatory way to say it:

"Providing sexual material to children is preparing them for abuse, you're providing sexual material to children, therefore you are preparing children for abuse."

This refrains from using a disputed definition and is therefore much clearer in what it is saying. This makes it easier to respond to, because the assumptions are laid out and can be openly discussed. It's a much better comment, with much higher standards of expression.

As an aside, I think that you can probably do the same thing yourself for racism. I know that I've had a fair amount of conversations on whether a particular racially-motivated act of discrimination was racist or not, and when I've sensed some confusion around the term, I've gotten good responses by explicitly recognizing and disclaiming some popular alternate definitions of the word, and emphasized that I was referring to racially-motivated acts of discrimination.

If the issue is the clarity, I think it it important to note that naraburns provided details on what he means by "groomer" a post before the one with the text you quoted. And he mentions in his post that he's using the definition from upthread.

All I did to make that sentence is take the comment you quoted from

Making such materials [books containing drawings of sex] available to children is textbook grooming. Do you honestly advocate for distributing such things to children? If so, you're a groomer, too, by every definition offered in the thread thus far.

But unpacked "groomer" using the definition in his previous comment that PmMeClassicMemes had just replied to.

By contrast, "grooming" describes the act of preparing a child to be abused or exploited, and some common known approaches to grooming are: asking children explicit questions about their sex and sexuality, exposing children to sexually explicit materials, and encouraging children to keep secrets or distance themselves from their parents.

Taken together, I think these clearly get to about the same place as what I wrote does.

This is a shaming tactic: "If you disagree with me on this issue then you are a knowing accessory to child abuse." It's unworthy of this forum, and it's an example of a style of rhetoric that would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left.

Interestingly, from the same thread, some left-leaning absolute rando responded to naraburns with :

"Very funny. You're a child molestor. There are gay and trans children out there, and you think they should be molested* by their teachers. You even suggested their parents should be molested* by the state for allowing their child to access gender affirming care.

I may be missing the modlog for that one.

Or, a little later:

"You're a child molestor. You are a hypocrite and there's zero reason for anyone to engage with you charitibly at any time for any reason. You use maximally inflammatory rhetoric and then cower from the consequences of your arguments applied logically."

"You are a troll, and a terrible example for the userbase wearing a mod's skin."

I mean, I assume there's an invisible modlog system, and a lot of my previous tooling to find stuff isn't high-vis, but there doesn't look to be a reply. Said person got downvoted a couple points, I think not perfectly fairly even if I think he made the worst versions of his arguments, but that doesn't seem to have been the variant of defense you've put forward in past conversations in theschism.

I'm not defending those responses. I agree that they were out of line, for the exact same reason that naraburns is out of line. And naraburns started it.

That's nice, but your previous argument wasn't that it was "out of line" -- I'd agree with you, on that, and I don't think that thread shows either naraburns or PmMeYour doing a terribly good job of even trying to persuade people or understand the opposing position.

But when it comes to "would not be acceptable here if it was coming from someone on the left", it demonstrably was accepted, whether or not it should have been.

Those comments are pretty recent, and the earliest one is a very-obviously-telegraphed insincere joke. Even so, I would be surprised if the mods were to let it slide, honestly. If we hear from them that both sets of statements are acceptable, I'll concede your point.

And naraburns started it.

The moderators of /r/themotte never permitted "He started it." as a defense for breaking rules. Don't see why they should allow it now.

I am not offering it as a defense! I do think it's important context, though, when evaluating why those rules were broken. It doesn't make it okay, but if I were moderating it would still modulate my response somewhat.

In particular, when I am moderating, if someone responds in an unacceptable way to a comment that was already over the line, I generally consider it important to acknowledge that context in my mod comment. In this case, PMMeClassicMemes is escalating the heat level pretty strongly, so I'd almost certainly still be handing them a ban, but the inciting comment would probably also come in for a warning.

Of course, I am not a moderator, here, and things get even harder when the inciting comment was made by a moderator. That's much trickier. I do not envy the mods; this is why you gotta stay in line!

I'm going to push back on this.

There's a lot a lot of consternation here but at the end of the day the whole conversation about puberty blockers in regards to trans activism requires one to accept the sexualization of minors as acceptable to even have the conversation and that's not a river I'm prepared to cross. Accordingly I sympathize with @naraburns for not wanting to cross that bridge either, and there does come a point where calling a spade a spade is the most charitable course.

Accordingly I sympathize with @naraburns for not wanting to cross that bridge either, and there does come a point where calling a spade a spade is the most charitable course.

Ah, we're doing the call a spade a spade thing? Will you defend me saying this forum is populated by 'yes-men tripping over themselves to fellate [FC]?' And will you defend my right to call out people for being racist, fascist misogynists in the future, if these are the rules you want to live by?

"Yes-men tripping over themselves to fellate [FC]" is more inflammatory than the actual idea it expresses. As is groomer. So both are inappropriate for regular usage IMO.

But there is a slight special dispensation here. The subthread was about conservative usage of the word as a topic. Attempts to define "groomer" or who deserves the label are understandable, because the word itself is the item of conversation. This is different from someone calling people groomers in some random transgender topic. "But it's okay, I'm defining it to mean XYZ..."

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