site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And when someone says "Drag Kids is sexualizing children" only to be met with "no, you're making it sexual, you right-wing pervert, we're just having silly fun"--it's maddening. Like, really? I'm supposed to believe that you're putting your kid in a leather thong for silly fun? Be serious. If that's not grooming, nothing is.

To be fair, I don't think this is an accurate summary of what's usually going on with all these events. The Boise 2022 Pride Guide doesn't have much information on what Drag Kids was actually going to revolve around, but a follow-up "Drag Story Hour" references Kenni The Doll, which... I'm not a fan of the makeup and not going to try to figure out what's going on under any clothing, but it's not looking like leather thongs or most adult entertainer 'wear' (there are two other entertainers, but I can't find any clear images or references to them).

I'm not saying that leather thongs (or too-sheer, or too-short, or otherwise too-revealing clothes) never happen! But whether or not it's a central case for drag as a class, I think a categorical opposition to the topic needs to handle cases like Eddie Izzard, who isn't appropriate for kids, but in a British comedic swearing sense, rather than anyone getting aroused by it, or find a meaningful way to separate them.

And I'm not sure the latter option is solvable, exactly. "I don't want to know, and don't want to need to know, about your underwear" is absolutely a reasonable norm, and one I share and support, and I think you can get a very wide section of the American populace behind. As the discussion becomes more about "this style of dress is inappropriate" or "this style of dance is inappropriate", though, I think that level of agreement gets a lot harder.

For a less culture-war-centric example, the furry fandom gets a lot of askance looks for people who fursuit in public, especially where kids might see. After all, people have sex in (something that kinda looks like) those! Well, ok, bringing a murrsuit body anywhere near public is one of the ways to reliably get nuked by everyone else in the fandom, but just because people haven't had sex in that particular suit doesn't make it less sexualized. For example, there are some (very nice!) fursuits with very thick thighs and incredibly fluffy tails and highly pronounced toe beans. Which absolutely can be fetishized in actually-sexual ways, but are also things people just think are cool.

((Though to extend the metaphor, this doesn't make it ethically mandatory to permit: both for practical reasons and for credit card processor ones, there's a lot of restrictions on under-18 fursuiting, many not explicitly written down.))

The fandom's largely managed to set and evolve some norms around here (don't use murrsuit bodies for anything public or mixed-use private, full suits should cover as much skin as viable, partial suits that don't cover all skin should be worn with fairly concealing clothing, UncleKage will murder ban you if you turn into a PR debacle), but note that this is the fandom. Normies who run into the issue don't just come up with a different answer; normies come up with different answers from each other.

And I don't think we have enough culture-wide communication to really build or even discuss normie-wide norms, anymore.