site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44984 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, but this is the very question I'm asking. What's the appropriate approach, when the truth itself is a memetic superweapon? "Taboo your words" is supposed to be a way to increase clarity--to say, "alright, that word is clearly a sticking point, what if we describe it another way?" If dropping the word "groomer" would get us closer to putting an end to grooming behaviors, I'd be on board with that. But it doesn't seem like dropping "groomer" would win a single step forward in that battle. Rather, it seems like the attempt to tar "groomer" as conspiratorial thinking is an attack on some people's ability to express the problem clearly.

The word "groomer" literally someone engaging in behavior meant to prepare child for rape or molestation. Whatever one thinks of drag child pageants, we would need much, much more evidence that this is indeed their intent to declare the use of this accusation as "the truth itself".

I'm not sure this is right; there's an (older?) sense of the word in which an older person develops a (non-sexual) relationship with a younger (too young to consent) person, and then scoops them up for a sexual relationship once they turn 18. (or whatever)

So the drag-queen thing can be viewed in a similar way; get children who are too young for sexual purposes inculcated into your personal fetish, which will increase the supply of adults for you (and yours) to sexually exploit down the road; "stochastic grooming," if you will.

Well, the current most prominent media usage I can remember is references to the British (Pakistani) grooming scandal, which specifically included adult men grooming girls for molestation right here and now.

But even beyond that, it's still something where even you are saying "can be viewed"; one could indeed concot a scenario where that happens, or theoretize that this is the end goal, but that's still not enough to pronounce it as "the truth itself" without a lot more evidence of that actually happening.

What is the end goal of DQSH/Fabulous Drag Kids then?

Their stated end goal is increasing LGBTQ+ positivity. Considering that polls have shown that at least the acceptance of basic trans identity claims has gone down in recent years, it's questionable how well it is succeeding, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not enough to pronounce - once again - the "truth itself" that actual end goal is grooming them for sex.

Interesting that the LGB part of things doesn't seem to have much to do with the drag aspect -- yes drag is a gay subculture, but in today's context it seems to be mostly about increasing 'T' positivity. "Grooming kids to accept trans people as potential sexual partners" is not the farthest thing from "increasing trans-positivity".

If LGB positivity is part of the goal, why aren't story hours with ordinary gay people? (as such)

I'm not personally hung up on the 'groomer' label, but can see where people are coming from with it; I also don't think 'trans-positivity' is a very positive thing for kids to be learning.

Look, my specific point is about the phrasing "the truth itself", the confident claim that grooming is the motivation. Can one make such a confident claim here, without further evidence?

Of course one can also take the stance that it doesn't matter if it completely matches the usual meaning as long as it is "something like it", but one should then not be surprised when others are similarly cavalier with meanings of words like "Nazi" or "racist", for instance.

Wait, are you claiming the cavalier usage of "groomer", came before the cavaliet usage of "Nazi" and "racist"?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats