site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   33060 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/shows/meetthepress/blog/rcna90023

Apparently there’s been a big drop in conservative support for gay marriage, all in the space of a year.

I think this says a lot, mainly because it’s a point I see brought up by a lot of the blackpillers in this community “look, look - even conservatives support gay marriage now, there’s no stopping progressivism”.

Well, what now? Apparently the left has pushed too hard and too fast and it’s turning the GOP away. Being LGBT isn’t seen as some harmless thing anymore, especially when it seems being “tolerant” means accepting gay drag nuns on crucifixes. The parodies are no longer a parody, and grooming children to accept gender ideology seems rife in schools even in deep red states.

Recently I read about a Muslim city in america voting to ban the pride flag. This is just one example of the incoming shift and realignment being forced by progressive extremism becoming more forcibly mainstream

Apparently there’s been a big drop in conservative support for gay marriage, all in the space of a year.

People are saying this is big, but it doesn't seem nearly big enough given how obviously duped conservatives who supported this (heck even progressives) were by the propaganda. Lets examine the sales pitch for gay marriage.

  1. We just want what's fair. False. They immediately demanded everyone participate.

  2. This wont affect your family. False. You and your family will constantly be in court battles to keep your family together against state agents attempting to castrate your kid.

  3. This will normalize the gay community. False, they are more depraved in public than ever.

  4. Love is love. Maybe?

Has 2) actually happened? I’m willing to believe it has if anyone can provide examples, but the most that ever seems to happen over the parents’ wishes is schools using different pronouns, and every case where a parent loses custody for not being gender affirming seems to be to his ex wife.

every case where a parent loses custody for not being gender affirming seems to be to his ex wife.

Yeah, fuck dads, who gives a shit about them?

Sure, but that happens anyways- courts favoring the woman even when it doesn’t make sense is not a feature of trans ideology, it’s just the way it is.

Losing access to your kids because "bitches be crazed" or whatever will make a guy mad, sure -- but as you say is something people are pretty used to.

Losing access to your kid and watching him/her sterilized and scarred for life kind of raises the ante is all. Seeing this happen to other people seems not unlikely to calcify political opinions on the underlying issue.

Yes. Or at least the mother claims it has: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12221449/California-mom-claims-19-year-old-daughter-murdered-gender-ideology.html

Additional quote:

Why are there so many transgender in foster care? Because this state take them from their families, tells them to run, then steals them

I don't know how many is "so many" - but it suggests it happened more than once.

ex wife.

A mentally ill ex wife getting to control decisions of a potentially mentally ill teenager seems to be a particular failure mode of the courts here. There is no sane legal system where this would happen. And when people notice a normal dad losing a custody battle to an insane mom, that is, indeed, a broken promise the gay advocates made.

If momma is mentally ill, the game is over already. This is not the legal system's fault.

When two parents split, one parent must have ultimate authority over the kid. For well and good reasons, this is usually the mom. For there never to be an bad outcome like this, courts have to be able to divine who is sane with 100% accuracy, which is obviously impossible.

The legal system prior to transgenderism also did this, regularly.

Like you can argue that dads should get a fairer shake in custody battles, but it’s not because of trans ideology that they don’t.

Taken individually, no single law in any state completely strips parents’ rights over the care and mental health treatment of their troubled minor teens. But pieced together, laws in California, Oregon, and Washington place troubled minor teens as young as 13 in the driver’s seat when it comes to their own mental health care—including “gender affirming” care—and renders parents powerless to stop them.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/when-the-state-comes-for-your-kids

Article presents an example of a 14 year old checking into a youth center and parents unable to retrieve them despite no cps investigation.

One mother I spoke with had had Child Protective Services called on her by her own therapist, after she had explained in therapy why she had chosen not to “affirm” her young trans-identified teen daughter. In that instance, the mom said, the social worker accepted the mother’s explanation that this did not constitute abuse. She counts herself lucky.

In that instance, the mom said, the social worker accepted the mother’s explanation that this did not constitute abuse.

If the California bill passes, that will in future be recognised as abuse (amended parts in italics):

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 957

Introduced by Assembly Member Wilson

(Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)

February 14, 2023

An act to amend Section 3011 of the Family Code, relating to family law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 957, as amended, Wilson. Family law: gender identity.

Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings and requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among other things the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 3011 of the Family Code is amended to read:

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:

(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.

(2) (A) A history of abuse by one parent or another person seeking custody against any of the following:

(i) A child to whom the parent or person seeking custody is related by blood or affinity or with whom the parent or person seeking custody has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary.

(ii) The other parent.

(iii) A parent, current spouse, or cohabitant of the parent or person seeking custody, or a person with whom the parent or person seeking custody has a dating or engagement relationship.

(B) (i) As a prerequisite to considering allegations of abuse, the court may require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies, child protective services or other social welfare agencies, courts, medical facilities, or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations providing services to victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.

(ii) As used in this paragraph, “abuse against a child” means “child abuse or neglect” as defined in Section 11165.6 of the Penal Code.

(iii) Abuse against another person, as described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), means “abuse” as defined in Section 6203.

(3) The nature and amount of contact with both parents, except as provided in Section 3046.

(4) (A) The habitual or continual illegal use of controlled substances or the habitual or continual abuse of alcohol or prescribed controlled substances by either parent. Before considering these allegations, the court may first require independent corroboration, including, but not limited to, written reports from law enforcement agencies, courts, probation departments, social welfare agencies, medical facilities, rehabilitation facilities, or other public agencies or nonprofit organizations providing drug and alcohol abuse services.

(B) As used in this paragraph, “controlled substances” has the same meaning as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code).

(5) (A) When allegations about a parent pursuant to paragraph (2) or (4) have been brought to the attention of the court in the current proceeding and the court makes an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation to that parent, the court shall state its reasons in writing or on the record. In these circumstances, the court shall ensure that an order regarding custody or visitation is specific as to time, day, place, and manner of transfer of the child as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 6323.

(B) This paragraph does not apply if the parties stipulate in writing or on the record regarding custody or visitation.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative in determining the best interests of the child.

The joke going around is that Senator Weiner is this guy (he's the one not in a harness, at the Folsom Street Fair).

I suppose I'm taking the most extreme, cynical view here but on a cursory reading in a custody dispute, if parent A is the stable one but refuses to maintain that Johnny is now Susie, and parent B is a drug-addled wreck whose house is a rubbish dump but goes "Sure, Johnny's a chick now!", then B gets custody.

But surely that could never happen.

The Daily Mail had a better headline for that story,

Four kids aged between 5 and 10 taken into care after being found at a drag party with a dead trans woman's body on the floor and drugs and sex toys scattered throughout 'hoarder' home

The Boston cops said that the earlier stories were exaggerated, I think four kids in an apartment with a dead body and (probably) drugs being taken is enough.

There's also the latest 'it would never happen so stop saying it would, bigots, there is no such thing as a slippery slope' story to come out, but to be fair, it's hard enough on trans people without holding them accountable for politicians as well.

This is part of my beef with the uncritical 'fly the new Progress flag' acceptance and probably why that poll showed slipping support for gay marriage: until and unless the 'trans community' - if there is such a thing - comes to grips with 'okay, not every person who claims to be trans is indeed not mentally ill and is genuinely trans and it's not a fetish, so yeah there needs to be some sort of procedure in place and it's not medical gatekeeping to insist that simply saying 'yeah I'm a girl now' and trying to grow out your hair is not enough', then shit like this will keep happening, and ordinary people will start pushing back harder, and then the 'it's transphobia and trans genocide, protect our trans kids!' cries will get louder in response.

EDIT: How could anyone misgender this perfectly valid woman, unless it was out of bigotry and transphobia? (Yeah, that's snarky but for feck's sake 'she' is not even making an effort).

Look into some of the things they’re teaching kids in public schools. Or what happens when your kid chooses to be trans. They can give your kid a new name, and he can live his entire school day as the other gender. They don’t need to tell you anything. In some states, once you find out, any hint of rejection of the new trans identity is grounds for them taking your kids away via CPS.

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