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 -
a) A groomer, not a pedophile. I don't find the insistance on the most strict, and worst possible meaning of the word to be particularly honest, when progressives often use a broader definition of it themselves
b) Yes, the act of smearing someone with an insulting name is something both sides have in common. But that's not what he, or I was pointing out.
What's the point of these passive aggressive jabs? Especially since I didn't say people on the right don't ignore data, I said they don't think it's a faux pas to bring data.
I agree with the OP here. Well, I agree that accusations of pedophilia are as likely as accusations of grooming, and in fact are strategically conflated. I don’t agree that it made sense for him to bring it up in this context, because...
Yeah. It’s rare, here, to take offense at actually providing data. I’m not sure how well that holds in sections of the Internet which embrace the “fake news” meme.
More options
Context Copy link
That is factually incorrect; if you look into it, you will find that the explicit term "pedophile" is used quite often.
I don't want to get into this tiresome argument about how "groomer" is used, but the fact that "grooming" has several meanings, one positive or neutral ("the executive groomed his son to be his successor") and one negative (referring specifically to the tactics of pedophiles) does not mean that we can throw up our hands and pretend we can't know how particular people are using it. Moreover, the term "groomer" is really only used in two ways: 1) to refer to people who shape the fur of animals" and 2) pedophiles. Finally, if you are going to claim that progressives often use a broader definition of it themselves, you should probably not link to yourself.*
Though not identical, I would say they are of the same class. Reasonable minds might differ, of course, but OTOH claims that "my out group is uniquely bad" are generally deserving of great skepticism, for obvious reasons.
You seem to be misusing the term, "passive-aggressive," since "Passive-aggressive behavior is a pattern of indirectly expressing negative feelings instead of openly addressing them"
I am doubtful that the claim that that "think it is a faux pas to bring data" is true in any meaningful way; it is either false, or only true to the extent that it is indistinguishable from ignoring data. In my experience, most people of all political stripes get very upset when presented with data that upsets their hobby horses.
*Especially to a link which is not very honest; you say "It doesn't help that mainstream publications were using "grooming" to describe consensual relations between adults." and link to an article in which the only use of the term is: " “He started grooming me when I was a teenager"
Adding to what thrownaway24e89172 said, you're getting the same reaction to trying to define away all evidence of grooming because it sets off exactly the same alarm bells as "woah there, how dare you, she's 13 so technically it's not paedophilia." Definition dodging is a huge red flag.
It's just that some groups are used to the privilege of being able to change the dictionary to win, so being forced to use a less convenient definition feels like oppression.
I am not trying to "define away all evidence of grooming." I am clarifying the definition of grooming, which has been defined for decades as "a slow courtship or ’grooming’ process to seduce children with gifts,
attention and affection" employed by pedophiles for the purpose of convincing kids to have sex with them. It not "the left" or "LBBTQ activists" who are attempting to change the dictionary; it is people who are assigning that label to people, such as librarians, who as far as they know have no interest in convincing kids to have sex with anyone. Honestly, this place sometimes seems like the Bizarro world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tried to look into it, while the word "pedophile" appears with some frequency, I don't see it in a context that would imply people who don't think "Gender Queer" is dangerous.
That's just not true. You would be correct, if there was only one negative meaning, which would specifically refer to pedophiles. The link I provided has a definition that does not specifically mention children, and another link to a mainstream media article using the word to describe consensual relations between adults.
I might agree depending on what kind of class we're talking about. If you mean that these behaviors similarly bad, sure. If you mean these are similar behaviors in terms of their structure, or the psychology behind them, that seems obviously wrong, and we seem to be discussing the latter kind of class.
Sure? But I missed the part where OP said that...
Like vaguely gesturing at "lots of people on here" instead of addressing them directly?
The example brought up by OP seems to be clearly describing such a case.
Is 18 not a teenager, and an adult?! Who is being dishonest here?
I have no idea what that means; I assume that there is some sort of typo.
Then you need to read more carefully; that is exactly what this discussion is about.
Again, you clearly do not understand what the term means.
I am not talking about specific persons; I am talking about a general phenomenon. I note that you have not claimed that it does not exist, but instead have resorted to a silly ad hominem argument.
And your evidence that she was referring to his actions when she was over 18 is what, exactly?
Possible grammar brainfart. You said that expressing the idea that "Gender Queer" is not dangerous would mark you as a pedophile. I don't see the word "pedophile" being used here, to describe people expressing that belief.
Can you help me out? I see him discussing a specific type of behavior, which seems to be unique to the left. I don't see him saying the left is uniquely bad in general.
These two points are contradictory. If I misunderstood you, believing that you had specific people in mind but are avoiding addressing them directly, then I understand the term, and used it correctly.
You know what it is, because you read the article where this is clearly stated:
Well, when I google "gender queer" and "pedophile" I get many examples
That is precisely what I meant by "my out group is uniquely bad"
No, you aren't, but there is no point in discussing it anymore.
Thank you, I missed that, but why not point that out in the first place?
More importantly, this really doesn't help you much, because even Wood is using "grooming" to refer to an attempt to prep someone to consent to sex. So, if I say, "Joe wants kids to read book X because he is a groomer," am I not saying that Joe is trying to prep kids to have sex with him, and hence that he is sexually attracted to kids?
Oh. The sandwiching of that statement between references to "people here" made me think you also meant this is how people here would react.
Ok. If I said "uniquely bad", I'd mean that the level of badness on the part of that group is higher than all other groups I can think of, not that there is a certain type of bad behavior that is unique to it, but is compensated by bad behavior on the parts of other groups, that are unique to them.
If we go with your definition, I disagree with the statement "OTOH claims that 'my out group is uniquely bad' are generally deserving of great skepticism, for obvious reasons". Different groups act differently, there's nothing surprising about it, and people should not be skeptical of a claim like that.
I suppose I didn't think someone would just skim the article looking for the first thing that they think would disprove what I said, and come back here to call me dishonest? Why did you call me dishonest instead of just asking why I thought she was an adult?
Sure it does! You were insisting the term groomer only refers to pedophiles, and now we agree it's flexible enough to cover sex between adults. We're not that far from agreeing that psy-opping adolescent girls into getting double mastectomies might also be grooming.
I didn't skim the article looking for evidence that would disprove what you said; I in fact looked for evidence that supported what you said, because I assumed that is why you linked to it.
No, we are nowhere near that, unless someone does that in order to get them to have sex with them. That would be grooming, but so too would be giving them a tootsie pop in order to get them to have sex with him. Or giving them advice with the intent to get them to have sex with him. It is the intent to convince someone to have sex which makes it grooming.
If that was the case, why did you call me dishonest instead of just asking why I thought she was an adult?
If the "pedophilia" part of the definition can be relaxed, why not the "for sex" part, especially since we're talking about minors in the latter case? It's not hard to find pre-"ok, groomer" articles that don't restrict "grooming" to sexual behavior? For example:
Grooming is the predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position that makes them more isolated, dependent, likely to trust, and more vulnerable to abusive behavior. Grooming is a insidious predatory tactic, utilized by abusers. Grooming is practiced by Narcissists, Antisocial predators, con-artists and sexual aggressors, who target and manipulate vulnerable people for exploitation.:
In this phase, the predator will start to use the target to meet their needs. With children, this is generally sexual in nature, but predators will use victims for money, to accomplish morally questionable things for them, or even just to fill an emotional need.
While grooming is often associated with sexual abuse, it can be as simple as filling an emotional need. For example, a boss grooming a direct report to fill a narcissistic need for superiority. When a target fights back, or confronts their offender about what is taking place, the groomer will use gaslighting tactics to keep them within their control.
Insisting that grooming has never been used to describe non-sexual behavior seems like literal gaslighting to me.
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
If you are going to moan about improper usage of the term groomer, I think it behooves you to use other terms properly as well. Pedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent children, which mostly excludes teenagers since it is very rare for a teenager to have not yet started puberty. You want to use it to cover attraction to anyone who's not an adult so you can use that taboo to shame a wider group of people for their attractions? Gee, sounds a lot like your groomer complaint, doesn't it?
Yes, I am aware of the technical definition. Do you think that those who bandy about the term "groomer" know or care? Or is it more likely that they are using it in the popular sense, in which "the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, including any sexual interest in minors below the local age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development"?
As for "moaning," are you saying it is OK to make baseless charges of sexual impropriety or base motives? I don't, whether that be the left calling everything "racism" or the right calling everything "grooming."
Of course they don't, which was exactly my point! The popular definition gets expanded to cover a wider group because people want to exploit the taboo for social power. If you are going to argue it is wrong to expand the definition of groomers, then it was wrong to have expanded the definition of pedophile to the point that "groomer" became synonymous with it.
No, I'm just frustrated that progressive arguments, arguments that the "groomer" narrative targets, used to excuse sexual harassment and abuse I endured growing up are being defended. I'm frustrated that I grew up to find out I'm attracted to kids, but not exclusively, and that those experiences make it extremely difficult to have relationships with the adults I am attracted to. I'm frustrated that rather than asking themselves what they can do to prevent abuse like I experienced, people would rather deflect to the boogieman of pedophilia without concern for what impact that would have on people like me. In short, I see your protestations as nothing more than one last "fuck you" from the people who abused me.
I didn't expand it: that was the original meaning: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/107906328800100207
I am sorry that you were abused, but I can assure you that nothing I have said was meant to be a statement about you, about victims of abuse in general, or about sexual offenders.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear what I meant by that. My frustration is that I take it that way, regardless of your intent, because of those experiences. It's not your fault that I take it that way, which is why I said it was 'one last "fuck you" from the people who abused me'.
EDIT: Fixed quote and grammar.
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
My go-to reference for this is Alexandra Rowland, who was 25.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link