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 -
Some rambling on modern attitudes found generally leftward which I strongly dislike. First, an anecdote:
There was recently a shooting at a gay bar. I share an online space with some friends and some acquaintances for general purpose discussion - no specific focus other than a general lean toward our mutual shared interests, which are unrelated to the shooting or what follows.
One person posted an article about the shooting and then something roughly equivalent to "thoughts and prayers" for the victims, and a follow up note that Bigotry Is Bad. No problem, I'm on board. A second person posted that, as a sexual minority, they are now afraid to go out. They have updated based on this attack to think the world is not safe enough to enjoy. I interjected with something along the lines of "hold on, attacks like this are less likely to get you than car accidents or [insert whatever mundane thing] - yes they're flashy and scary, but you really shouldn't update based on them - they're statistically insignificant AND if you want to view them as terrorism then you living in fear is letting them win - you shouldn't do that"
The response I got was a gentle dogpile (they did start with "I know you're just trying to help, but..." and such), saying that I shouldn't be trying to tell marginalized people how to feel about things and I should let them have space to process their trauma and etc etc, much insistence on "letting the victims speak" (by which they mean indirect victims - people that share a class with the victims, not the firsthand victims) and being a good ally by listening. I pushed back for a bit saying that I'm not making any claims about the general safety of LGBTetc folks (though they are still safe enough to not feel so afraid of the world around them if they live somewhere like the US, this was left unsaid) and that I'm only saying if you previously had the courage to face the world, the shooting shouldn't have changed that and we explicitly had a person saying exactly that they were now afraid based on this event...
But eventually I got the sense they just didn't want to hear me. I gave an apology in the vein of "when people are afraid is exactly the BEST time to reassure them, but clearly I am failing to do that, so I'll back off" and they spent a few seconds talking about how important and good it is to let LGBT voices speak first (of which there were several available in the space, many of which were in the dopile). After those seconds, we have had 24+ hours of silence. Not a word on the topic from any involved or even any spectators, though they all continued talking about unrelated things in other channels of the space.
So. What happened here? I feel like insistence on sitting down and letting marginalized voices be heard is frequently insincere, as it happens even when nobody marginalized (or indeed, anybody at all) has anything to say. It is a "shut up" button, to be deployed whenever somebody says something you don't like that's adjacent to [minority issue]. Even if that isn't how they feel about it, that is functionally what is going on.
Superweapons are bad.
Like others, I don't understand why you think of this as "generally leftward." If anything, an inflated fear of being the victim of crime (esp after a publicized incident) despite its statistical unlikelihood tends to be right-coded. See, eg, the occasional comments on here re NYC in general or the NYC subway in particular.
I've seen those. What I didn't see is an implication you're committing some kind of faux pas by disagreeing, particularly when you bring data. I also don't recall anyone expressing how important it is to have "white voices", or something, after someone expresses disagreement.
Otoh, if I say that Gender Queer might not be a threat to children, I run the risk of being accused of being a pedophile. And certainly ignoring data is not the province of any particular team; again, see lots of people on here.
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.
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"
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:
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