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 -
#”We’re coming for your children.”
The LGBTQ+ movement kicked out NAMBLA, genuine pederasts, in the 80’s in order to get sodomy laws aimed at consenting adults off the books. The American anti-pedophilia majority took a generation to accept this disavowal at face value.
The Pizzagate section of the Q or QAnon movement revived the bailey that gay people generally want to rape children to cultural relevance, and did so around the time the trans rights movement was pushing acceptance of transition. The motte version is that the gay community reproduces through social memetic contagion since they won’t reproduce sexually. One potent variation is the ironic and practically self-parodying “trans genocide” meme
The drag queen story hour program made the idea scarily realistic even to parents who didn’t subscribe to any of that conspiracy theory nonsense. And now there’s a new twist.
As chronicled by NBC News:
In the 21-second clip, circulated by a right-wing web streamer channel, dozens of people march in the streets and are clearly heard chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going shopping.” But one voice that is louder than the crowd — it’s not clear whose, or whether the speaker was a member of the LGBTQ community — is heard saying at least twice, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”
To conservative pundits, activists and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they’ve levied in recent years that the LGBTQ community is “grooming” children.
But to Brian Griffin, the original organizer of the NYC Drag March, if that’s the worst they heard, it’s only because he wasn’t there this year.
Griffin said he chanted obscene things in the past, like “Kill, kill, kill, we’re coming to kill the mayor,” and joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches. People at the Drag March regularly sing “God is a lesbian.”
“It’s all just words,” Griffin said. “It’s all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.”
The “coming for your children” chant has been used for years at Pride events, according to longtime march attendees and gay rights activists, who said it’s one of many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people. And in this case, they said, right-wing activists are jumping on a single video to weaponize an out-of-context remark to further stigmatize the queer community.
Conservative politicians and pundits have increasingly referred to advocates for LGBTQ rights as “groomers,” associating people who oppose laws that restrict drag performances or classroom discussions of gender identity with pedophiles. The charge is an echo of a decades-old trope anti-gay activists have used to paint the community as a threat to the country’s youths, an allegation that some advocates say endangers LGBTQ people. And the intense reaction to the video has scared some attendees, who insist the quip has been taken out of context.
“It’s really scary to us,” said Fussy Lo Mein, a drag performer and activist who was at this year’s march and declined to give their real name because of safety concerns. “It doesn’t represent everybody — it represents that individual. I thought it was a dumb idea, and I started chanting on top of it with alternate verses.”
This seems to be equivalent to the Charlottesville “White Rights” event where “Jews will not replace us” was supposedly chanted. The outgroup only hears “WE ARE A THREAT TO EVERYONE YOU LOVE AND EVERYTHING YOU HOLD SACRED,” while the ingroup appreciates the nuance and gets a bit freaked out at the outgroup seeing only the surface level interpretation.
Just because the "Jews will not replace us" chant was meant to be provocative, and even playful on some level, does not mean it wasn't saying something meaningful- it was. The ingroup doesn't interpret it the exact same way as the outgroup, but it was still a slogan that spoke to the relationship between demographic change and Jewish cultural influence as interpreted by the people who were saying the chant. Likewise, "We're coming for your children" is saying something very real... no, the people that said that aren't all trying to physically abuse children, but the statement means they intend to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement in defiance of their opposition.
Imagine you go to the library, pick a book that is ostensibly about the adventures of the cute pig on the cover, only to get home, start reading it to your children, and realize that the message the story is... Jews will not replace us. I can say it has now happened 3 times our nanny has brought home a book from the public library that seemed completely innocuous on the cover, only to turn out to be LGBT propaganda geared towards toddlers.
They are coming at my children with their propaganda, there's no denying it, all you can do is hope they won't be influenced by it despite the mounting social pressure. As of two days ago, Obergefell v. Hodges was only eight years ago when the country was very much still divided on the question of gay marriage. The present state of the culture proves that all those decades of conservative tropes were correct, and yes, they are coming for your children in order to influence them positively towards that culture.
Which, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society. Just as those who lobby for or against teaching all sorts of things do all the time.
Also, if your nanny is not familiar with the saying, "you can't judge a book by its cover," or is too lazy to leaf through a book for toddlers, you need a new nanny. And some people want their kids to read those books. That is why the library carries a variety of books, some of which appeal to some people and some of which appeal to others.
Stay away from children or experience the consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
Right, so the Conservatives who said that this entire thing was about reaching their children were correct. You can say "it's a legitimate goal in a democratic society", whatever that means, as if social propaganda isn't common to all societies everywhere. But the conservatives saying "if we allow gay marriage next they are coming for our children" were right, and it took less than 8 years from the Supreme Court decision. We apparently could not allow gay marriage without our children shortly thereafter being inundated with LGBT propaganda, they were right.
Our nanny is great, we go through dozens of books at the library and let them pick it out. She comes from a place and is of a generation where this propaganda would be unthinkable and she lets her guard down occasionally. It's no big deal, she puts the book aside when she sees where it's going.
Attempting to change people's beliefs is a legitimate goal of citizens in a democratic society, as opposed to non-democratic societies, where that right is reserved to the state.
Although I am sure you can dig up some outlier, I don't recall Conservatives arguing that gay marriage would lead to our children being inundated with LGBT propaganda. Probably because that makes little sense, and also because:
The right of LGBTQ persons to lobby for their goals like other citizens is inherent in the First Amendment, and if there was any question in that regard, it was dispelled not by Windsor, but in 1996 by Romer v. Evans.
Regardless, what does any of this have to do with OP discussion about pedophilia? A claim that "the gays" are secretly trying to molest our children is qualitatively different than your claim that they are trying to "influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement." As I said, the former is illegitimate, but the latter is not.
Conservatives use the word "grooming" to mean that they are trying to bring children into the fold of that culture, which they are openly admitting to here.
You can argue all day that this doesn't fit some dictionary definition of the word, and of course it's foremost propaganda, but then again so are all the accusations of "-phobia" which actually have actually acquired social credibility as weapons against someone's reputation. It's pure culture war, the dictionary has no weight in matters of culture war.
"You can't call me transphobic because I have first Amendment Rights", yeah try that one out for size. These words are used to energize the side you are on and demoralize and smear your opposition, I find it completely laughable that the LGBT community, which is quick to smear everyone who does not agree with their ideology, is now complaining about being on the receiving end of this tactic.
Assuming:
It's harmful for children to become transgender, i.e. they have worse psychological, health, and social outcomes if they identify as transgender.
The LGBT community intends to create propaganda geared towards children that will influence more children to identify as transgender.
The Conservative movement is completely justified in using the "grooming" accusation and viewing this propaganda as an attempt to harm their children.
Dude, you made a very, very broad claim: that "influenc[ing] the perception of children towards the LGBT movement" is somehow illegitimate. Now, you are making a very much narrower claim. It is a classic motte and bailey. And, I note, even that narrow claim it is still very, very different from the OP's initial reference to child molestation. Because that is what OP said: "Conservative politicians and pundits have increasingly referred to advocates for LGBTQ rights as “groomers,” associating people who oppose laws that restrict drag performances or classroom discussions of gender identity with pedophiles".
I have no interest in speaking in terms of legitimacy or democracy, what I said was:
Where did I say it was illegitimate? I said it is affirming the behavior that conservatives are denouncing when they use the word "grooming." When conservatives are talking about grooming, they are not merely talking about "people who oppose laws that restrict drag performances or classroom discussions of gender identity" they are talking about people who want to influence their children into embracing or even identifying with LGBT culture. That's what they mean when they use that word. The "we're coming for your children" is meant to provactively admit that, yes, this is what they are trying to do- although they of course see nothing wrong with that.
So, you are saying that, unlike said conservatives, you do not find it illegitimate?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's your understanding of the word "homophobe"? Or is that different because it's a propaganda term you like?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it isn't. The binding force of Democracy is not infinite, and this is one of the things that will exceed it handily. Every cooperative system we have assumes we've achieved values-consensus, that the systems are being used to pursue at least a rough approximation of common goals. This is not a common goal, not exactly, not roughly, not within a million miles. This is the weaponization of shared institutions for antithetical goals. Better to remove those systems, and any systems that can be used likewise.
Democracy is simply a form of politics, and politics is nothing if not contestation over competing and often antithetical goals. The idea that democracy requires agreement over goals is the complete opposite of reality; democracy is a means of peacefully managing disagreement over goals.
Not all disagreements over goals can be managed peacefully; hence war. I have not claimed that democracy requires agreement about all goals, for that level of agreement would mean no negotiation or compromise was necessary. I am claiming that there is a minimum level of agreement necessary for Democracy to function, and "we're coming for your children" is an expression of its absence.
Except that what I said was a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society was attempting to "influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement." Not molesting children. That was the entire point.
Man this democracy thing just keeps sounding worse every day.
What regime can I get that doesn't have totalitarian aims to brainwash my kin? Monarchy?
Any regime where you're not part of the selectorate would do.
But be careful what you wish for. The only thing worse than a regime thst cares what your kids think of it is a regime that doesn't care what your kids think of it.
More options
Context Copy link
Only if you're the monarch.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Attempting to shape children's values and worldviews in ways their parents consider abhorrent is not a legitimate goal in a democratic society. If you are interested in persuasion, persuade the parents. Abusing a system established for the common good to ends that are not agreed to be the common good is a serious defection, and doing so by exploiting blind spots in our legal and social systems doesn't make it any more acceptable. Failing that, don't be surprised when people withdraw their consent to such social systems wholesale: you've already proven yourself incapable of good-faith cooperation, so when that cooperation is withdrawn you have no one but yourself to blame.
Again, it is inevitable that government will shape children's values and worldviews in ways which some parents will find abhorrent. That might be in school lessons, or books available in libraries, or even in failing to censor TV programs. Negotiating those competing values is what politics is all about. Once again, if labor unions, and Nazis, and Communists, and segregationists, and flat earthers, and Hindu nationalists and Mormons can legitimately lobby schools in an effort to change students' views of their movements, why is there a special rule for LGBTQ people?
Edit: And again, schools are in the business of inculcating values and what values should or should not be inculcated is a subject of political contestation. In a democratic society
everyone gets to make their case about what those values should be. They don't, however, have the right to win, obviously. Hence my initial point that attempting to influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement, unlike child molestation, is a perfectly legitimate goal in a democratic society.
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
Arguing against teaching something at school still allows for things to be taught at home, or other contexts that parents have control over. Setting out to influence someone else's children against the parents' wishes is qualitatively different from that. It might still be legitimate, but there's no way to claim these things are similar.
I don’t understand the difference. Isn't that true of everything that is taught at school? If I argue against the teaching of creationism, I am "setting out to influence someone else's children against [some] parents' wishes," am I not? Ditto re arguing against teaching "CRT." Ditto re "influencing the perception of children towards the Civil Rights movement" and "influencing the perception of children towards the BLM movement" (in either direction), and "influencing the perception of children towards free market economics." Why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement"?
More importantly, as I said, trying to "influence the perception of children towards the LGBT movement" is not secual assault.
Well if Lil Ms Hot Mess can come into school and teach four year olds about being fabulous, then it should be just as fine for Preacher Billy-Bob to come into school and teach four year olds about creationism, right? We're not advocating for one set of values over another, we're not encouraging acceptance of a lifestyle, we're just letting kids see the wide range of opinions in the world.
Some people are queer. Some people are creationists. Don't be prejudiced and bigoted!
But we all know that in reality, parents who object to Preacher Billy-Bob will not be accused of bigotry or anti-religious prejudice and they will be supported if they don't want their kids learning that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
Again, the issue is not what should be taught. It is whether LGBTQ people can advocate for the teaching of fabulousness, and whether creationists should be permitted to advocate for the teaching of creationism. IMHO, the answer to that is yes, in both cases.
And, not that it matters, but IMHO creationist theories should be taught, and evolutionary theory should be taught, and students should be given evidence and trained how to use evidence and logical reasoning to assess which theory is more accurate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, you're not. If you were arguing for teaching creationism you'd be doing that. Arguably you'd be doing that if you argued for teaching evolution as well, which is were the drama around the topic came from, and which is why I said depending on the situation it could be legitimate.
In any case forbidding something, in a context where attendance is mandatory, is clearly not the same thing as demanding something be mandatory.
How is that a meaningful distinction? Schools teach for things all the time. Some teach that Christopher Columbus was a great hero, even though some parents think he was a genocidaire. Most teach that Jim Crow was wrong and that the Civil Rights Movement was a moment of great progress, even though some parents disagree. Economics classes often extol the virtues of the free market, even though some parents disagree. Some schools teach patriotism and "family values," even though some parents disagree. When teaching sex ed, some schools teach "abstinence only," even though some parents disagree. What to teach is always subject to disagreement, and all sorts of groups try to influence what is taught. So, again, why should there be a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards the LGBT movement"?
Have you missed the part where I said "Arguably you'd be doing that if you argued for teaching evolution as well, which is were the drama around the topic came from, and which is why I said depending on the situation it could be legitimate"?
How do you not see the distinction between mandating something be taught, and demanding something not be taught in mandatory schools?
For the same reason there's a special rule re "influencing the perception of children towards Jesus Christ being our lord and savior".
As I just said, that is a meaningless distinction.
That would be a violation of a very specific prohibition regarding freedom of religion. Which is why, although schools cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible prohibits it, they are free to teach that it is wrong because it undermines the family, or for 1000 other reasons. And if your school district is teaching that, you are free to lobby it to teach instead that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or that people should be tolerant of homosexuality.
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
Not if you want your child to remain mentally and physically intact.
More options
Context Copy link
Like the Bible? Certainly schools do very much not approve of having people reading the Bible on the premises! 😁
More options
Context Copy link
They're the same
picturebook.This is a bad comment that is nothing more than a culture warring sneer. Speak plainly. If you want to argue the unoriginal claim that "Jewish cultural influence" promotes LGBT, you have to actually argue it and bring evidence, not just assert it.
Four warnings for low-effort inflammatory drive bys, and you haven't stopped, so this ban will be for three days.
Jews run Hollywood: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/jews-in-hollywood-kanye-west-dave-chappelle-rabbi-explains-1234645366/
Hollywood promotes LGBT: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/lgbtq-tv-characters-glaad-report-2022-1235094632/
Anything endorsed by Hollywood is endorsed by Jews, as they run Hollywood, which is gay and getting gayer.
BlackRock promotes LGBT: https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4025048/blackrock-steps-push-lgbt-equality-inclusion-joining-lgbt-great
BlackRock is a Jewish asset managing company that happens to be the largest in the world. It's very gay, and pays others to be gayer, blacker, more disabled, uglier, etc.
QED Jewish cultural influence promotes LGBT, among other things, all of which are very progressive. It would be fair to say that it's not all Jews, but the ones that do promote it just happen to have the most power.
The "why" is I feel the most debatable area, right-leaning people would say its to destroy the West, left-leaning people would say its oppressed minorities fighting to protect others on the right side of history, or something.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Come on now, this is against the spirit of this place. You could at least find out what you’re asserting before you make that assertion.
The "spirit of this place" (as well as the written rules) require the previous commenter to be clear about what they mean in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why?
Thanks for linking that, didn't know about Superman's name being Jewish. His arguments as to the motivations of his creators seem very well thought out in this comment. What exactly do you disagree with there?
Glad kids don't really give a fuck about Superman anymore after reading that.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that "LGBT propaganda" and "propaganda about Jewish cultural influence" are both two very large and heterogenous categories.
Do I have a problem with children reading books which feature gay or lesbian characters? Absolutely not. Do I have a problem with children reading fictional books which feature trans characters? No. Do I have a problem with children reading textbooks that tell them that "sex is a spectrum", that even banal and harmless gender nonconformance may be indicative of transgenderism, that puberty blockers are harmless and reversible, and which more-or-less actively encourage them to seek out invasive irreversible surgical procedures which will render them sterile and unable to achieve orgasm? Yeah, I do.
Do I have a problem with children reading books which (correctly!) point out that Jews are overrepresented at the tops of many industries (like the news media or Hollywood)? I mean, that would make me a little uncomfortable, in the same way that I'm uncomfortable with educational content which aggressively highlights the fact that white people are overrepresented at the tops of many industries and fields. Woke people, as a rule, don't have a problem with that kind of content, so extending the same treatment to Jews would just be an exercise in consistency - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Do I have a problem with children reading books asserting that the Holocaust never happened? Yeah, I do.
Frankly, I think the latter kind of LGBT propaganda is far more insidious than the former kind of propaganda about Jewish cultural influence. The latter kind of propaganda about Jewish cultural influence is more insidious than any kind of LGBT propaganda you care to mention.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty far from OPs worldview, and I don't know how to judge which is more insidious, but "Hey little girl, you like playing with trucks? Have you considered a double mastectomy?" feels like it's playing in the same league as "Doesn't the president of the local bank have a funny nose?".
This is an example of a concise and even cheeky comment that is not low effort and actually makes a clear point without being verbose. Just wanted to give credit where due, and also highlight this for those who keep accusing us of modding for verbosity and against brevity.
Yes they are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You said pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in my reply, using 10% of the words. I commend your succinctness.
Thank you, I strive for efficiency! Though I think longer responses tend to come of as friendlier, and you also supported your argument with a link, so on the other hand your comment made me think I should have put in more effort.
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