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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I definately do not want to imply that you or any other blue here is a pedophile. I do not believe I or @naraburns has claimed that you or any other blue here is a pedophile. I have never understood the word "groomer" to be a synonym for pedophile, and in fact it is not a synonym for pedophile. It is explicitly a term for people who violate trust in an attempt to harmfully and secretly modify children's sexuality. Up until very recently, the only people who would even dream of doing that were in fact pedophiles, but it's the abuse of trust and the clandestine modification that's being objected to, not sex with kids. If the consernation is over percieved equivocation in language, allow me to be the first to apologize.
If you and others object to this so strongly, because suddenly conversation becomes impossible if one uses terms in a specific and unambiguous way that you don't agree with, let's not allow it to interfere with our communication. Give me a word. Give me a word and I will use it. you pick the fucking word to encapsulate "a person who is motivated to grossly abuse my trust and their authority in an attempt to fuck with my child's head, damaging their sexuality and their sanity, in secret and against my expressed wishes, to a degree that makes keeping them and anyone who associates with or supports them as far away from anyone I care about as possible", and scout's honor I will use that word unfailingly from now on. I will even translate quotes from others into that word, because I sincerely believe that is the idea most of them are trying to communicate.
This offer is open to any blue here. Pick the word that you think fairly encapsulates the above concept, and you will never hear "groomer" from me again. Make it as anodyne as you like, as anodyne as possible; it will pick up all the negative affect it needs in very short order.
(8 letters or less please for convenience, please and thank you.)
I agree with @Gdanning that I think you are using a nonstandard definition of "groomer." Groomer usually implies willfully and intentionally eroding a child's natural inhibitions in order to make them more receptive to abuse. It's a deliberate tactic by predators.
Whereas the meaning you (and @naraburns!) are using is more like "Someone who serves as a useful fool by desensitizing children in a way that will make them more vulnerable."
In a sense this is Mistake Theory vs. Conflict Theory. If you're making a child more vulnerable, does it matter whether your intentions were good or you're actually trying to feed them to predators? Nonetheless, I submit that people who think sexually explicit books about blowing older men are appropriate for children, or that girls shouldn't be allowed to object to people with penises in their changing rooms, are mostly not people who actually want children to be preyed on - they actually think they are doing what's best for children! (At least some children.)
I don't know if I can come up with a single word to distinguish them from groomers (I suppose in a venue like this, "quokka" would work), but I do think "groomer" should be reserved for predators who know what they're doing and are doing it on purpose. There is no way you can call people (even by implication) "groomers" and say "I didn't mean to imply you're a pedophile, I'm just saying your beliefs are very favorable to pedophiles" and expect that conversation to proceed in a calm and reasonable manner.
I think the other side of it, is that I think there needs to be a standard on where and when intent actually matters. I think largely that's what's being talked about here. And one of my...let's just say frustrations, is that it tends to be used in almost an entirely partisan/tribal fashion. And I don't think that's helpful in any way, shape or form. So I'm not sure where I sit on the discourse argument...just that I feel like it needs to be sorted out one way or the other. (Same way I feel about a lot of topics actually)
That said, my own personal belief is that I do think there's a LOT of recklessness in terms of certain parts of Progressive culture in terms of the effect that their culture has on people. I've said that down below, it's THE issue for me. I don't think people actually mean to hurt people....people see this in more of a political sense, maybe changing who they vote for or so what rather than something that deeply influences who people are....but I do think that not everybody gets that super secret decoder ring, as I've always put it. Note: To put this in a non-partisan frame, I'd make, and have always made the same criticism about religion, that I think that it's a problem with kids not having religion framed in a proper way either, to where they take it too seriously/internalize it too much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link