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 -
As Anita Bryant famously said:
She was called a bigot and cancelled, but time has proven her right.
Seems like a motte/bailey.
Motte: As a group, homos must replenish from non-homosexuals' offspring, necessarily; if they didn't do this, they'd already not exist.
Bailey: Homosexuality is a choice; what's more, it is actually a movement agentically interested in swelling its numbers. To do so, they must make our kids gay.
The problem with the bailey is the assumption that ... either, kids should rather be gay but stay their lives firmly in the closet; or the way that this looks from the outside, kids should just "choose" to "be" straight. Which, as far as I can tell, is and remains largely impossible.
How long do they have to desist from same sex behavior before they're straight, a year, five?
It's possible for people to find their way out of homosexuality, but if they've made it large portion of their identity and social group it's difficult, like leaving a cult.
Doesn't matter. As long as the impulse remains, they're still gay, even if they deny it.
Like yeah, you can repress, and live a thoroughly miserable existence attached to someone who you don't really love or feel attracted to -- imagine how you'd feel trying to carve a life out with a morbidly obese 3/10 munter to try and "cure" your attraction to fit, attractive people.
This seems a particularly worse case outcome.
Men with same sex attraction seem especially prone to drug, chemical, alcohol and parphillia induced or adjacent sexual activity. This seems throughly miserable to me. I guess they're fortunate that in current year there's an abundance of degeneracy to allow them to live their inner truths publicly.
'Straight' people sublimate all sorts of impulses and desires into more traditionally socially acceptable directions.
This is a subculture problem more than anything else. You might as well complain that people who choose to wear birkenstocks also engage in this behaviour. Obviously we need to discourage wearing of birkenstocks!
There are plenty of us who opt out of that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the stereotype is, to a degree, self reinforcing; people see this kind of thing touted as how "all gays" are, and so fledgling gays, newly discovering their sexuality, think that's "how to be gay" -- because it's a confusing time, and any kind of guidance is manna from heaven if you don't have a really well developed sense of personal identity at that point (and most teens don't).
I despair and despise every day that Drag Race and circuit parties have become the mainstream representation of being gay in the anglosphere.
and gay cruises, gay resorts, gay pride, gay...
The 'other' gay orthodox path in current year is 'marriage' and sometimes gaybies. Though this does not preclude drag, circuit parties, drugs and parphillias.
Calling it a subculture problem seems a little dismissive, especially when any move against it is met with accusations of bigotry or homophobia. Would the Birkenstocked claim bigotry against their sensible shoes?
Largely because there's so much more of it, and it's so accepted by segments of society. Is there any counter messaging that there are other ways to be gay, or you might not even be gay just a confused horny teenager without a regular non-gay outlet for your libido?
Same subculture. This is the problem when you co-opt the name of the entire sexuality for your club...
Yes, but we're suppressed just as much as hetero opponents are. We're accused of being "not real" gays, of being traitors, handmaidens, internalised homophobia, all that good stuff. There's nothing leftists hate more than a traitor, remember.
There used to be a lot of messaging around "it's okay to experiment, it doesn't mean you're necessarily gay" when I was a teen, but that seems to have faded over the years with the rise of the cult-like aspect.
I'm not sure if we were teens at the same time, I was a teen in the 90's. I heard this messaging then too. We would object to being 'labeled'.
Are there enough of you to rebrand this gay lifestyle?
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