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.
How is it not absolutely self evident that the trains are coming for the children? I feel like you would need to be almost literally insane to think otherwise.
If they’re not coming for the children, then what is the purpose of states passing bills to make themselves trans sanctuaries or whatever? Why is pride stuff being put in schools? Who was the one that made the “protect queer children” sticker I saw this morning?
The idea that any person could reasonably say, in 2023, that gender fetishists are not coming for children is absurd. They are very clearly, very well fundedly, literally putting pride gear in major retailers, coming for your children.
I mean, that depends on the meaning of 'coming for the children'. Trans activists see themselves as benevolent saviors, swooping in to protect innocent trans children from being tortured into suicide by evil Christians. In that sense, of course they would not be embarrassed about it. But you probably don't mean it in the same way.
I think the way that Christians see “coming for your children” is what the trans activists are doing. That’s why it seems so bizarre to me that they are trying to claim both at the same time. “We’re coming for your children” seems like it could practically be the header text of every pride event.
(I’m paraphrasing this is not an actual quote):
“We are coming for your children, but don’t worry we aren’t going to sexually assault them, we are just going to cut off parts of their body, mutilate others, give them hormones which will irreversibly sterilize them, and convince them that you, their parents, are trying to commit genocide if you try to stop us XOXOXO”
This is funny to me because Christians have been and still are guilty of doing all of those things: cut off parts of genitals, "sterilization", and IMO teaching eternal punishment in hell is at least as bad as convincing them their parents are trying to commit genocide.
And of course the child grooming.
A secular humanist could maybe make this argument. A christian should attend to the beam in their own eye.
That's really reaching.
That's not really a Christian practice. Literally no one I met was circumcised. Also, as horrible as the practice is, the big difference is that the genitals remain functional.
I think you need to put a lot more quote marks around that one. By that logic every woman that doesn't immediately drop her pants when I demand it is sterilizing me.
A problem that afflicts Christian churches less than it does public schools by at least an order of magnitude, last I checked.
Nope, they're doing just fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Dont forget: They still want to have sex with "your children" as a group. That some of them dont identify an individual 10 year old they want to bang at 10, 12, 16, or 18 is still only a small defense. If a bunch of heterosexual men started going to girls schools espousing the merits of unprotected sex and then we saw a spike in teenage mothers, few in the media would fail to recognize the connection.
Same thing I said to @firmamenti. There seems to be some feeling going around that suddenly one group or another is okay to make inflammatory, unsupported generalizations about because they are generally unpopular here.
You've provided zero evidence that "they...as a group" want to have sex with children. You may not assert that any "they...as a group" wants to do something bad without supporting such an inflammatory claim with proportional evidence.
You just came off a three day ban for this exact thing, after I had previously warned you to stop, after a long string of similar behavior. So now you're banned for a week.
More options
Context Copy link
You've stretched this far beyond any reason. "Some of them might want more sexual partners so that might be an incentive to convince more kids they're gay but even if they aren't grooming that kid specifically and aren't interested in anyone below 18 they're pedos because children were involved at some point in this nebulous chain of events".
By that logic any man who tells your kids that girls marry boys is a pedo, and a woman a female accomplice fetishist.
More options
Context Copy link
Who are these abstract, Platonic pedophiles? Are they, by any chance, made of straw?
Abstract, platonic pedophiles and other horrors from beyond the stars
More options
Context Copy link
What are you talking about? It is well documented that there are large discords dedicated to "hatching eggs" which means convincing kids they are transgender.
There was a question posed in my post you didnt even attempt to address: Is there a sexual incentive for gays and trannies to convince more kids to be gay and trans? Answer that, and I can answer you further.
Look at this from a transgender person's viewpoint:
when I transitioned, it was a good thing, my life immediately improved
if I had transitioned even earlier, it would've been even better
thus, when I help people realize they could have been born in the wrong body, show them the way out, and they transition at 12 instead of 32, I do very good things
Do you think this transgender person has a right to groom other people's children into outcomes that they believe are beneficial?
If a pedo thinks back very fondly on being diddled by his uncle, does that make it okay to diddle your kid?
I don't care about groomer logic, do whatever you want to your own disgusting body as an adult but stay away from children or face the chipper
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Extremely Online teenagers convincing each other that they're trans is still not pedophilia.
You didn't pose that question, either. You just sort of took it for granted.
Is your claim that those discord servers are populated by 100% teenagers? If not I don't see why this is relevant.
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
You're failing the intellectual turing test. They see themselves as saving children who were born trans. It isn't obviously mutilation if the child is born trans and the diagnosis is accurate. Thus the phrase "coming for the children" has a relatively innocent interpretation here.
On the other hand, nobody has yet performed a randomized controlled trial on outcomes for different treatments for (or diagnostics of) trans children. (I looked very hard for papers on this last year. The only RCTs are on adults, and in non-RCTs measuring suicide rates in teenagers the effect sizes for surgery and for social transition were about the same. A trans rights activist I was conversing with argued that to perform an RCT would be unethical.)
It's mutilation even if those concepts exist in the real world and the child fits them, because we do not have a sex change operation which is not mutilation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you believe that gender is sufficiently innate, then there is no recruitment. There is only whether or not you let them suffer.
How they justify it doesn't change whether or not they're coming for your kids.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lots of posts get reported for "consensus building" because someone asserts a proposition that the reporter disagrees with.
This post is an actual example of "consensus building." You are framing your assertion as something one would have to be "almost literally insane" to disagree with.
You are allowed to argue that trans activists are "coming for the children," but you need to actually argue it, not just say "It's obvious, it's absurd to think otherwise."
Also, do not use reddit/rdrama euphemisms like "the trains." Speak clearly (and you can feel how you feel about trans people, but you cannot use generalized pejoratives directed in a way that includes other posters here).
Let's be fair, "trains" is a necessary circumlocution on most platforms, and therefore not necessarily a pejorative - just a circumlocution.
But it's not necessary here, and it's never used in a non-derogatory sense. So don't use it here.
I’m saying you’re wrong, it is used in a non derogatory sense, because circumlocutions are the only way to talk about that subject in many places.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did you read the rest of my post? The examples I gave of trans people “coming for your children” were:
Several bills passed to make states like Minnesota trans sanctuaries.
Work done by trans activists to get retailers like Target to prominently display trans affirming fetishes in their stores, specifically targeted towards children.
“Pride days” in schools
Phrases like “protect queer kids” and the associated paraphernalia.
How is it consensus building to cite examples that support my claim that trans people are openly targeting, coming for, and recruiting children?
Yes, I read the rest of your post.
You did not link any of the things you cited to "the trains." Moreover, you can argue that individual trans people and groups are doing what you claim. If you want to say "the trains" are doing it, you need a lot more evidence. Same as with any other group that people are fond of broadly accusing of all sorts of nefarious activities and ideologies.
Also, you still may not assert that it's "almost literally insane" to think otherwise. Whether you intended it as hyperbole or not, it is the kind of consensus building language we explicitly discourage.
I want to make sure I understand this, but first I’d ask you to stop using Reddit drama language like “the trains”.
There must be ground realities that we can agree on to be able have a discussion, right? Like for instance: trans people exist? If somebody claimed that the existence of trans people was an elaborate psy op and that none of them were real and they were all holograms, it would be appropriate to say “you would have to be suffering from some sort of paranoid delusion to believe this.”
Or no? The point that I’m making here is that the people claiming both that they must come for the children and you are a bigot to stop them, but also that they aren’t coming for the children and you are a bigot to suggest they are, are trying to create a sort of insane (in the technical sense) delusion in people’s minds.
Again this isn’t consensus building. This is a description of what I perceive these people to be doing.
This stuff has been well, well discussed here, hasn’t it? Are you disputing that these things are happening at all?
... Are you trying to be funny? I quoted you (hence the quote marks), because I told you in my initial warning to stop doing that.
No, I am not. I spelled out the problems with your post clearly and explicitly. That you are pretending that we're disagreeing about "ground realities" like whether or not trans people exist, combined with whatever you are doing above, suggests to me that you are not engaging in good faith. You've been warned several times in the past for low-effort comments like this, and every time you have pushed back insisting that everything you said was right and reasonable. This is of course not an uncommon reaction, but your reaction in particular is really doing you no favors. You are not going to gain any traction by saying things and then claiming you didn't say them or that you actually said something different.
You said not to use Reddit drama phrases, then continued doing so, presumably to be antagonistic. I asked you to stop.
This seems relatively straight forward to me.
What am I claiming I didn’t say? That seems like a bit of a silly thing to do, since the posts are all right here for anybody to read.
It doesn’t seem like you’re trying to argue in good faith here. I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere.
You can yell at me more if you want or misquote me or mischaracterize what I said or even continue being unnecessarily antagonistic, but I won’t reply to you any more in this thread.
Have a nice day.
No, I quoted the phrases you used to explain why your post was unacceptable.
I believe this was straightforward to you and you are being intentionally difficult and disingenuous. The only reason I have continued to reply to you this long is because in my capacity as a mod, I try to make sure everyone understands why they are being modded. I think you understand perfectly well why you were modded, and you're attempting some kind of rhetorical jujutsu here that isn't going to work.
You are not required to reply to me at all. You are only required to post in accordance with the rules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an odd request since you literally used the phrase "the trains" in your original post.
He’s doing that to be antagonistic. He said not to say “trains” (which I don’t agree is a Reddit thing but whatever), so I stopped, but he kept using that term.
I don’t think it’s an odd request. Im asking him not to be unnecessarily antagonistic.
Here’s another example of him misquoting me, then arguing with his own misquoting: https://www.themotte.org/post/499/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/102514?context=8#context
He’s doing this, presumable again, to be antagonistic.
(But this is way off topic sorry to anybody reading along. I does get annoying when people mischaracterize what you say)
He kept mentioning it, which is quite different.
More options
Context Copy link
where?
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
It seems to me that the problem is not that you "cite[d] examples that support my claim that trans people are openly targeting, coming for, and recruiting children" but rather that you insist that your interpretation of that evidence is the only rational one.
Take "protect queer kids," for example. Leaving aside that queer refers to a lot more than just trans, my understanding is that that phrase is meant to mean "protect queer kids from [bullying, suicide, etc]. Even if you disagree, surely you can see that some might interpret it that way, can you not? Or even that it is possible that that interpretation is correct, and that yours is incorrect?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's two equivocations here, what does coming for your children mean?
Is it persuading children to be trans or is it persuading children to have sex with adults?
Is it persuading children being trans is okay or is it persuading children to be trans?
Some of these are obvious, others aren't and within the coalition that pushes this there are various levels of agreement and desires about the exact meaning, as every political movement with broad appeal has to pretend to serve as many masters as it has currents.
As someone with deep sympathy for the experience of trans people I still think all of these possible meanings are terrible however. Being trans is fucking awful and wishing it on anybody or seeking to increase the number of trans people in the world is about as straightforwardly evil as you can get. And even the most charitable reading of teaching love and acceptance is at least terrible in the way it's expressed. Loving people do not sneeringly say they want to turn father against son.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link