site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   37630 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The “groomer” panic also features the same obnoxious and cancerous motte-and-bailey strategic-equivocation tactics that rat-adjacent rightists despise so much when it’s used against them; figures like James Lindsay, Rod Dreher, and even Marjorie Taylor Greene, are all involved in a linguistic shell game, wherein they use a word which they know for a fact is supposed to refer to grooming children for direct sexual abuse, and when pressed they retreat into “well, they’re saying that children have a sexual identity, which is kind of like sexualizing them, which is the same thing that child molesters do.”

What level of evidence would it take to convince you that the term "grooming" has a history of common and uncontroversial use to describe adults or older youths maneuvering themselves into a position of unaccountable confidence and authority over younger adolescents and children, to their benefit and the child's detriment, but without explicitly sexual connotations? For example, if I could provide you examples of mainstream media describing street gang recruitment as "grooming", would you agree that this seriously undermines your statement above?

Because if "grooming" has in fact been the accepted term for such behavior, it doesn't become less appropriate when the specific behavior in question is aimed at shaping children's understanding of sexuality and sexual identity in deeply unhealthy ways, does it?

What level of evidence would it take to convince you that the term "grooming" has a history of common and uncontroversial use to describe adults or older youths maneuvering themselves into a position of unaccountable confidence and authority over younger adolescents and children, to their benefit and the child's detriment, but without explicitly sexual connotations?

Grooming in that context isn't to the child's detriment. It's to the child's benefit. It means you have picked them out to receive special training and privileges so they can take over some high status role in the group.

It can be used in other ways, but the allusion in these cases is usually pretty specific.

If the allusion being reached for was how one grooms a horse resulting in a shiney new mane drawing the analogy that the trans kid is a shiney beautiful new creature, then it would be being used by the left not the right.

The context it is used in, the types of memes it is used in, the language it is used with is what tells you what version of grooming is being alluded to.

If the term grooming is appropriate because it is aimed at situations in shaping childrens sexuality then churches and every parent pretty much ever have been grooming kids for centuries. But it is not used in that fashion there, only because they don't like the particular shape in question.

It's a weapon. Which is fine, its a culture war not a culture scrapbooking but I think we can be honest that it is a weapon.

Tough to say, how about you throw some my way?

Edit: I now see that FC substantially edited and fleshed out his comment after I had already responded to it, leading to Hlynka’s response below, which I found confusing until I went back and saw FC’s edit.

About 30 seconds of searching turned up this hand-out from Shared Hope international.

#1 REASON THEY JOIN? RELATIONSHIP

  • They are drawn by ‘belonging’ – dress codes, gang colors, power and being part of something strong and impenetrable.

  • Poverty is a huge factor in recruiting victims.

  • English as a second language makes some more vulnerable. Undocumented aliens makes them a target. Who would they tell?

  • They may have real needs for food, clothing, shelter, rehab or resources. The gang offers to protect and provide. **Grooming ** includes promises and flattery.

-- “See that girl in the nice clothes? She’s one of mine.”

-- “Do you need something? We will hook you up.”

-- “I care you’re in pain.”

I didn’t realize that FC had added significantly to his original comment, so I was unsure why you thought that this one single example was going to look like strong evidence in favor of his proposition. Now that I see your comment in relation to his edit, I at least realize why you picked this example, although I still consider it nowhere near strong enough evidence to refute my accusation that those using “groomer” are attempting to smuggle the most inflammatory connotation into their every use of the term.

Walking out the door for a road trip, but consider this an IOU. I'll see if I can get a compilation together tonight or this weekend.

@HlynkaCG got you, have an excellent road trip. Keep some 5W-30 in the trunk just in case.

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