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 -
The gender framing is catnip hereabouts, but I don't think it's the correct one in this case, because girls don't like this shit any more than boys do (though they may be conscientious enough to tolerate it for longer). In fact, several girls of my acquaintance quit Girl Scouts for approximately the same reasons: the old-skool exciting activities with real-world skills, actual exertion, exploration, challenge and risk were almost wholly replaced by boring social-studies modules with posters, web research, scrapbooking and worksheets. Girl Scouts were never that big on spearing things with straight pins (!), but they used to do lots of wilderness survival stuff, practical making, etc. that's now gone.
I'd argue all that dull safetyism is more about the general totalitarian vibes/ expansion of bureaucratic culture (you can't deny that those poster and worksheet skills are better training for a sweet nonprofit or middle-management job than spearfishing would be). Plus, frankly, most of the adults also being indolent deskilled couch-dwellers whose idea of exploration is a good long gaming session, some Twitter or Insta, and a pornhub chaser. If a bunch of men were out joyfully hunting squirrels and building racers from scrap parts, then we could rant about the feminization of scouting all you want, but from what I can see the guys are mostly just as boring, limp and abstracted as the women.
There are rednecks who would happily take the youths hunting, there's even special seasons for this. If you, as a middle or high school boy, go to a deep mechanic shop and ask if you can help so you can learn a thing or too they'll let you. Etc, etc.
Scouting used to be good at facilitating this stuff- it decided to pivot away from it.
Anyone who stepped up to offer those things would get nothing but criticism for only being willing to volunteer for the fun things but not the hard things.
Probably, yes.
And I think someone elsewhere mentioned the child abuse stuff. Anyone who attempts to step up is going to be told "Well, you'll need to take this online course about child abuse, then you'll need to get fingerprinted at the police station, and sign this form to allow a criminal background check." At which point said redneck is going to say "You want me to WHAT now?"
Well, freedom of association was never in the Constitution to begin with.
(Not that it helps nations that have it in theirs; their problem is more that they put a "we're not obeying this fuck you lolol" in the header instead.)
Then "society" has made its choice. You can make people jump through flaming hoops to be considered moral enough to associate with children (Padme: Other than your own, right? Anakin: ... Padme: Other than your own, right?), or you can have an ample supply of volunteers. You can have neither but you can't have both, and counterarguments involving the word "should" (as in men "should" be willing to go through these simple and vital procedures) are not really arguments but just social pressure to avoid this point being made.
Sure you can- clearly, all you need to do is to become a public schoolteacher. After that, you may sexually interfere with kids all you like (generally with the regime's blessing; so all you have to do is align yourself with the regime).
Sure, you will still generally get arrested if you actually get physical with them- but for molesters, that interference is the end goal (they're getting off on it), so that doesn't actually hinder them any.
Internalized misandry hurts men and lying flat under these conditions is the correct "negotiating tactic". What is sabotage (including inaction) if not bargaining -> negotiating -> politics -> warfare by other means?
You're right that lying flat is the correct tactic, but it's not bargaining, it's just coping; no change for the better is possible. The rules and procedures are not going to be repealed -- parents will not accept any case of child molestation that could have been stopped by a rule or procedure they have experience with or can think of. And such rules and procedures will tend to select for the wrong people even from a "Scouting virtues" point of view. After all, what is the point of being honorable if you are assumed to be dishonorable until proven otherwise.
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