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 -
That's fair. I don't think children should be "taken away". I think children should be free to go where they want to and systems should be configured such that roaming children remain supported.
Since this is not what is actually happening in the top post- it's fair to say I disagree with present implementation.
But I do absolutely think- what most parents who are afraid of transgender role models are afraid of- is their kids making the choice.
I claim the resistance to my ideal would consist of mostly the same people for mostly the same reasons.
Child liberation is opposed mainly by people who want the power to ensure that their children become the upstanding ideal of their culture, and are uninterested in any compromise that would free their children to pursue becoming the upstanding ideal of a different culture. See "Groomer" rhetoric.
“Every generation, civilization is invaded by barbarians - we call them 'children'.” - Hannah Arendt
More options
Context Copy link
Yes_Chad.jpg
With the added caveat that "child liberation" is a mirage. Unless you're dropping them off at the jungle to be raised by wolves, you're not liberating them from anything, you're raising them in different values that they have no choice over.
What kind of jungle has wolves?
This kind, I guess...
More options
Context Copy link
The kind where lions sleep?
More options
Context Copy link
The kind in the imagination and work of Rudyard Kipling.
I guess there actually are wolves in India -- it says they avoid "wet, dense forests" though. (which I guess doesn't mean that they never go in the jungle):
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.814966/full
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And if they all end up on Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island, is that a good thing?
That is a hell of a bad thing. However, if kids have a realistic view of how likely something like that is...and they decide that winding up there in the pursuit of their desired life choices is preferable to not being able to pursue something like transition...
I mean, it's a kind of mutually assured destruction. Someone that sits down and decides that they would rather wind up in this kind of hellhole than not transition is one hell of a determined motherfucker and as such deserves respect.
Are you of the opinion that children are just as capable of mental analysis as Adults but just in a small form factor?
No. I am of the opinion that when it comes to individual issues children can be surprisingly capable, although they often fail to consider the big picture. When they examine long-term consequences the analysis often lacks nuance and depth, and may miss certain important issues entirely. However, it is often surprising what children - what people in general - achieve when [they believe] their life or bodily sovereignty is at stake.
I know a couple of children who more or less invoked MAD when they were quite young - ten or eleven. In one case this was extremely deliberate and carefully planned. The kid called a family meeting and discussed the terms of their conflict about a week after it started. In both cases it left them with lifelong side effects that they weren't able to predict at the time but which most mature adults would be able to foresee. That being said. They were fairly impressive in their resourcefulness, determination, and resolve; that is to be admired. This is a sort of power that is not given but taken by the simple and desperate expedient of being willing to suffer terribly, or even to die, for the strength of your personal or philosophical convictions. Only the very determined, or the very scared, or the very maladjusted will go this far in attempting this, and make no mistake about it - it is a terrible thing, sometimes. It alters relationships and changes people for life.
To say nothing of the kids that invoke MAD and wind up with one side overplaying their hand. This being said: I still believe that it takes an exceptional level of willpower or determination to risk the abyss. It turns what might have been bullshit power struggles of a generation ago about wearing your hair short or even dating the same sex into genuine straight-up goddamn existential battles that are far likelier to have deleterious lifelong consequences. But in the end it is ultimately a battle of human will against human will, and I've seen some damned strong-willed kids...at that point it is very much a naked power struggle, everything else be damned. Who has the power? Who is genuinely okay with being buried, rather than not getting what they are after?
I may be rambling. But I am of the opinion that if your child is old enough and wants something badly enough to be okay being maimed or raped or killed over it - and they're unwilling or unable to desist - that needs to be respected even if you deeply disagree with it, perhaps especially if you deeply disagree with it. It's kind of...invoking a state of war or at least some kind of extraordinary circumstance where the usual rules do not apply in the same way, or apply only in the sense that they are part of the power struggle.
Game theory is a motherfucker. Anyone who wants can pull out a live hand grenade, though this takes a lot of willpower and is almost always inadvisable.
The way to deal with this is long before your 14-year-old has decided that they are trans, that they will pursue medical treatment by any means necessary, and that they consider it a straight up life and death struggle. You may be able to win that battle by force or threat of force, to be honest. But if they don't get the memes that if they're gender-nonconforming, they're trans...or if they're not good at performing gender roles, they're trans...they are a hell of a lot less likely to wind up playing Mutually Assured Destruction: Trans Edition.
This sounds much more epic and reasonable until you realize kids will regularly get into this level of game of chicken over liker Katy Perry tickets and the weaker willed parents will cave. You really really don't want to set standards that encourage brinksmanship like this.
I may not have been sufficiently clear earlier:
I do not endorse MAD; I am merely describing a dynamic that anyone that is determined and desperate enough can access. Even if the child wins this struggle, it is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory in many ways and may leave lifelong scars. To say nothing of the dead and maimed people that will be the result of one side or the other overplaying their hand. I've heard it said that war is a dirty, nasty business, and while this isn't Vietnam, it's still a bit nasty and ugly. I hope that most kids will realize this...and that most parents will find ways to make it clear that irreparably altering your relationship with your parents isn't worth Katy Perry tickets.
I mean. In some instances of MAD you need to have plausible deniability. What's Sarah going to do if she doesn't get Katy Perry tickets? Jump off a cliff? If you're a middle-class parent, you just reply that if she's for real, she needs psychiatric care, and she's going to go for a vacation in the grippy sock hotel. Which, coincidentally, is expensive and is going to leave them unable to afford concert tickets. That is fairly likely to work...especially if she's told about all the horrible things that sometimes happen in psych wards, or the side effects of antipsychotics. For this to work you need the credible threat of mutual annihilation.
More options
Context Copy link
And this is the exact reason why parents get really frustrated when it comes to dealing with
young adultteenaged children. (That said, the condition of being "weaker willed" is a sinking waterline with respect to children developing a stronger will over time- the inflection point is popularly around 14, but parents [being too close to the problem] tend to overestimate it.)More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What range or limit are you thinking about here? 14 and up, less or more?
How do you grok this with cases in which the children were groomed secretly by their teachers and they spring this up suddenly to the parents?
In practice, about ten. As young as that sounds - and as horrible as that sounds (and is!) that is about when kids in extremis are able to satisfy the condition "Wants something badly enough to be okay being maimed or raped or killed over it - and unwilling or unable to desist. And competent enough to be able to pose a significant, sustained threat to themselves or other people.
You might have the occasional malicious or predatory or just plain criminally ignorant teacher pulling this. I suspect that the teachers doing this are well-intentioned but basically swallowed certain kinds of bait hucked by political ax-grinders and quacks in the medical establishment. We both agree that current memes around this trans shit are fucked. If it was treated as the goddamn medical condition it is, we might not be having this problem...if it was a more intense and life-altering version of the decision on whether or not to send Johnny to the neurosurgeon because he herniated a disc playing football as a freshman in high school.
But: how many of these kids who are essentially following a fashion trend are willing to look terrible suffering and even death right in the goddamn face and say "Yes. I would rather this, than desist. Here I stand; I can do no other." and then actually fucking follow through with it? Like. For MAD to work, you have to have a credible threat of mutual annihilation. I suppose that certain kinds of peer pressure and belonging might get people to do that - but that IMHO usually happens to teenagers, not middle-schoolers.
I thank you for your answers, and while I disagree with the age thing (I even think that the age of consent, for drinking, for military shit should be raised [Kids being the little retards that they are]) I can see where you are coming from. As for the second part (About grooming situations and MAD and what not) I think that if the current environment persists with the trans community and allies incapable or unwilling to police itself, the government (at least majority D ones) and the media just fanning the flames, it will serve to incentivize more malicious actors to join in. As an accelerationist I'm all for it, but I recognize that not everyone is as misanthropic as me (And really the population collapse is going to fuck all before anything else).
I mean. I do not believe that it is at all a good idea that 11-year-olds make life-altering decisions that they are in many ways unable to understand the consequences of. However, the reality is that if sufficiently motivated they will make such decisions, although that kind of motivation is thankfully quite rare. It's...any sufficiently determined individual can play the MAD card and get a tense but stable peace out of it. It is simply a way for a weaker player with a live grenade to force a draw from a stronger adversary.
I also think that...hmm. Getting someone to risk their damn life for an ideology is kind of a difficult thing. If Sarah sees that her friend Jane (and both her parents) are dead because of a murder-suicide that happened over trans care...and they're both 12...does Sarah have THAT much strength in her convictions to go down the MAD route? I doubt it. And some of the time, yes. People will be killed, maimed, and imprisoned because one side or the other overplayed their hand.
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
I proudly own this label, and I ask you why it’s bad. Our society does not do enough to make sure children become an upstanding ideal of normiedom. Instead we leave them to decide what they want to do, which is usually something stupid but glamorous like ‘become an influencer’ and then when they grow up put energy into helping them become normies in the back end when a bunch of them have already screwed the pooch.
So why, exactly, is it bad to want children to turn out like their parents but better?
I appreciate the candor.
But you missed the other half.
Child liberation is opposed mainly by people who want the power to ensure that their children become the upstanding ideal of their culture, and are uninterested in any compromise that would free their children to pursue becoming the upstanding ideal of a different culture.
So why is it bad for them to become the upstanding ideal of a different culture? I agree that it is bad when a child fails to find any viable niche, which is what your argument describes, but why should every child be crammed into their parents' niche? Last I checked, most of us here value horizontal and vertical societal mobility. Forcing children to be their parents but better is... inhuman. Ant-like.
Seeds within a child should be nurtured. However, if you raise a child with ulterior motives, you are compelled to quash seeds that do not conform. This damages the child and perpetuates a culture of painfully breaking people into a mold. You are losing efficiency by cramming round pegs into square holes. This is an argument against modern conventional schooling as well, you may be more familiar with it in that context.
Longterm- I proudly hold the goal of seeding every ecological niche with human/transhuman intelligence.
Crushing children's exploration of new cultural niches is antithetical to this prospect. Instead legitimizing and teaching the fear of the Other and the New. It robs children of their innocence and teaches them fear.
Because the basic foundation of society the willingness of people to sacrifice their own pleasures to invest in futures they will not personally benefit from. If generations are not tied together and current generations do not have the right to shape what comes next, people will not invest in the future at all. They'll go off and have "fur babies" instead of kids, and let their communities collapse into chaos in pursuit of their own personal virtue-signalling and status.
More options
Context Copy link
The idea that we all have special seeds within us that need to be expressed in the world is decadent romanticism. This belief system is one of the current failure modes of society because it fundamentally misunderstands what a self is. We participate in our ongoing development in embodied relation with the world and others.
In terms of human development it doesn't make sense to posit someone born into one family system and culture as if they were born into another.
This doesn't preclude development that honor's the child's unique characteristics and preferences to give them sovereignty and agency. Or for cultures to adapt and change.
Any parent with any sense knows that while they have a special unique child, they are also responsible for shaping that child's development while their brain is forming. This duty of development means a parent often needs to overrule the childs own view of the world, ie in limiting this or that food, technology, being wary of strangers, trying to advocate options that don't limit in education etc.
Unfortunately people, families and cultures come with a lot of baggage, but there is no utopian shortcut. Transhuman ideas and decadent romanticism have fed into the current trans contagion and are causing irreversible harms.
More options
Context Copy link
Because they mostly don't.
Children need real, living role models that they interact with every day to absorb enough of a functional culture to smoothly take it up themselves. Right now, society is absolutely full of fake role models, cardboard cutouts of fictional cultures that attempt to lure children into their clutches to be used in some way, whether somewhat banally as brand dedicated consumers or more maliciously.
Children are impressionable. They lack good judgment and, especially, have no real concept of the long term until they are already quite mature, ie., until they have already been raised within one culture. There is a reason we don't just leave cigarettes or alcohol or sexual activity to the good judgment and curious nature of children: They will make bad, often harmful mistakes much more often than they will learn valuable life lessons and become the wiser for it.
The worst part? The children themselves are the only ones with the right incentives to raise themselves right. Because their judgment is impaired, we are left with the second best choice, those whose incentives are aligned with the child's the second most: The parents. Society has no skin in the game for any particular child and anonymous or large scale social institutions most of all. No parent is perfect and always has all their child's best interests in mind at all times, everywhere, but they're going to be significantly better than a teacher who only has that child for one class for one year, where they are but one of dozens of others. They're certainly better than any bureaucrat for whom the child is one of a faceless multitude.
In the past, face-to-face local society provided an additional set of adults whose caring and long term exposure to the child offered a non-exclusive alternative to the child's parents, but that culture is dead and the modern replacements are not up to the job.
More options
Context Copy link
The alternative to children being broken into a mold by their parents isn't those children freely and independently choosing their own destiny, it's those children being broken into a mold by the first social trend, infohazard, or two-bit groomer they come across. Would that be true of all of them? Of course not, but we don't make policy for outliers, we make it for the average, and it is better for society that a few weirdos like us are given less agency than we could potentially handle for a few years as teenagers then letting all the kids roam free and be manipulated by bad actors into pursuing harmful goals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link