site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36254 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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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?

This part: "I think the action is purposeful, and aims to change the worldview of vulnerable and impressionable people." Surely you did not mean to imply that manipulating "vulnerable and impressionable people" is a good thing.

And, BTW, your original claim was: "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."

So, either you are calling someone a groomer "only because [you] disagree which materials are appropriate for which age groups," or you are calling them groomers because you "think the action is purposeful, and aims to change the worldview of vulnerable and impressionable people"

Surely you did not mean to imply that manipulating "vulnerable and impressionable people" is a good thing

Are you using the word "manipulating" in the most technical meaning, as nothing more than a synonym for "change" or are you relying on the word's negative connotations to put words in my mouth again?

I don't think what they're doing is good, but I think they believe what they're doing is good, which is why your characterization of what I'm saying is wrong.

So, either you are calling someone a groomer "only because [you] disagree which materials are appropriate for which age groups," or you are calling them groomers because you "think the action is purposeful, and aims to change the worldview of vulnerable and impressionable people"

Sorry, I responded to you shortly after Gemma, where I referred to queer theorists, and when I got to your reply I was still thought they're they're the main topic.

If this was just about pedophiles, likewise I don't think they believe what they're doing is wrong, so your description of my beliefs is wrong.

I don’t understand how what they think is relevant. The question is whether you think they have the intent to do something bad, and you do. You just said so: "I don't think what they're doing is good."

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.

I think those are basically the rules I am calling for. Admittedly, I will still complain if you say "problem of grooming" and I think you are talking about something that isn't deliberately trying to make it easier to sexually abuse children, but I would not report such comments, I'd just argue back.

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