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 -
This whole discussion has helpfully provided me with a great example of the right quietly redefining a word for political advantage he way the far left redefined racism. Thanks guys.
I strongly disagree. Please tell me: do you believe my art teacher telling me I should come to school in women's underwear to get in touch with my true self qualifies as grooming?
I've brought this up twice now, and nobody in the "groomer is a slur" camp has deigned to state their opinion on it. I'm curious why, when it seems like such a clear example they could build trust by reassuring people they are against it. If they are, in fact, against it.
I'm just going to say, I don't know that I have a dog in this fight really, but I will basically never engage with someone who brings up a highly emotionally charged experience like that in an intellectual discussion. Especially online. It's likely to lead to extreme discourtesy and hurt feelings. Whether affirming or disaffirming, it's just stupid to reply to that.
I'm highly anti-war, my politics are all basically downstream of "Iraq was a horrendous multi-level failure that cannot be allowed to be repeated." I've been going to anti-war protests for twenty years now. I don't bring that topic up around veteran friends, they've staked their lives on their position, it would be crass for me to toss off my little Noam Chomsky anecdotes or Pat Buchanan monologues to men who lost friends or body parts in that particular mistake.
I could explain to them that their youth, and perhaps the rest of their lives too, were wasted in an imperialist venture that benefits no one but the Islamic Republic of Iran. I could wax poetic about the post war international order, the failure to understand the Shia-Sunni conflict and balance of power, the absurd belief that inside every Iraqi is an American trying to get out. But I don't, because I don't want to be an asshole to a friend who still has friendly fire nightmares.
So that might be why no one would engage with your story. I sure wouldn't.
I... Don't really understand the "emotionally charged" thing? It's one of the funny anecdotes I tell about my retarded school that was well ahead of its time, like the trips to Cuba to witness the glorious communist future, or the Buddhist convert teachers who never realized the monks were laughing at them behind their backs.
If it's a war story, it's the mildly embarrassing one about finding out that one guy wasn't just really good at gay chicken only after two dates and a very awkward shower.
But if you think it's a serious issue worth being emotional about, why can't you come out against teachers doing it?
Yeah, not how I read it this time or the first time I read it, and I don't have access to your emotional state so I'm going to avoid guessing. It reads more like something I saw regularly on Reddit in the past, where someone would derail a debate about the exact borders of consent or a prominent rape allegation with a post that similarly challenged the reader: "OH, so you're saying it was ok that man raped me while I was blacked out drunk?" Discrediting someone's victimization rarely persuades anyone, and especially not the poster. And you risk inciting an outburst.
Anyway because the only details provided to me are in the one sentence challenge comment, while the poster challenging me has all the details, it's a no-win situation for the reply, because even if you think you analyze it properly the poster can always just reply with new details which weren't in the original post. Like, if you reply to the above hypo "Well, if you chose to drink and your boyfriend didn't know things had changed;" she'll probably just reply "Actually it was a stranger and he slipped everclear into my drink."
If you really want to use your personal experience, you need to provide that kind of context in advance. Like "Hey, this wasn't traumatic for me at all, I'm just presenting it as a narrow hypothetical, no additional facts."
What would be your "well what if X made it ok" in that scenario then?
That's why I asked the question: what would make a bunch of people who were super into "Me Too" and abolishing any potential for sketchy behavior in school and the workplace suddenly get so evasive about this?
If It's never ok for a 25 year old professor to talk to a 22 year old student without the office door open for fear of grooming, why the reluctance to call out weird sex stuff with leftist teachers and kids? Because to an observer the explanation looks an awful lot like "we don't want to prevent that, and oppose any attempt by concerned parents to prevent it until it's fully normalized."
Quibbling over the terminology and trying to prevent any word being used to describe the behavior is just Freddie's "please just tell me what word I am allowed to use" post in action yet again.
Well the premise is false, so who cares? A->B is always true, and usually not very interesting, if ~A. If we're willing to lynch witches on obviously false accusations, why not lynch my neighbor for calling me an asshole, which he at least did do something wrong? If those communist democrats love their violent black soros-funded mobs so much, why can't we firebomb a few abortion clinics? If my grandma's a monkey, then i'm a mixed-species freak of nature, and I can make billions by selling my tissue to biolabs. These are stupid statements! You know the former is a dumb left-wing thing, and is being done for stupid, hypocritical reasons, so - why bring it up - and what does it prove about the latter? They could entirely hypothetically correctly understand the latter doesn't matter, and that the former doesn't matter, and just be delusional about the former - and be in the wrong only in the former case.
Again, why are you being so obtuse and evasive about this? Either you think it's good or you don't, so why can't you just say it instead of spewing defensive ink everywhere?
The refusal to give a yes or no answer tells me the answer is "we'd rather not take a position agaisnt that just in case the party decides it's time to celebrate it"
I've said multiple times today that nobody should ever be trans, it's a crime against nature, confused, degeneracy, et cetera.
You're just doing a moral purity spiral, and have no interest in engaging in the details of why trans exist, what's happening with the people who are trans, etc. And certainly nothing about, like, conversational norms or meta-debate, which is what OP was mostly about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link