site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do endorse the groomer rhetoric because it's actually engaging in the debate on a symbolic level in the way progressives have only been able to since the conservative defeat on gay marriage. I don't think it's a moral panic for conservatives to appreciate the symbolic humiliation of drag queen story hour:

Children learn their lessons- their notion of reality and right and wrong, through stories. A story hour is a safe place for childen to learn through stories, and furthermore the storyteller is usually a trusted figure in the community like a teacher, mayor, or president. There is something symbolically revolutionary about children sitting in a circle around a flamboyant drag queen and being told a story. That symbolically matters. As hesitant as I am to endorse the rhetoric of the boomerwaffen, I can't fault them for picking this battle and I think it's gaslighting honestly to call their discernment of a sexually-charged augmentation to a symbolically important community ritual involving children a "moral panic."

Agree. It's effective rhetoric. And not completely unfounded either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_Queen_Story_Hour

In 2017 and 2018, the organization had a convicted child sex offender perform in the Houston Public Library.[17] The library had failed to do the background check that is part of its usual process for storytellers. The library apologized and recognized its shortcoming in not properly vetting the performer in question.[18]

How does that story in any way corroborate the 'groomer' narrative? Ok, there was one drag artist who took advantage of the potential for close access to children, but that could equally happen in all sorts of other scenarios (teachers, clergy, sports coaches etc.) and that is never considered grounds to smear the entire group with the tar of the 'groomer' label. And as for the library's failure to vet, seems like just ordinary laziness is the most likely explanation.