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 -
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
Looking at your comment history, almost every one is a low quality boo, befitting your username. Since that seems to be the sole purpose for this account, and you are posting comments like this, I'm going to ban you for a week. If you decide to keep using this account, stop using it just to post the things you can't on your main (or with the one that was previously banned).
More options
Context Copy link
Before you can even talk about this right, you have to establish that this is what they actually want. They would never use the word "groom", and this is important because they do not see themselves as changing the child's disposition, only revealing what was always there.
"Expose kids to the idea, the ones who are serious will take it on, those who aren't won't" is precisely the reasoning they use, not "we want as many as trans kids, regardless of how seriously trans they may be".
Oh, you're not actually interested in the nuance, never mind.
You don't have the right to expose other people's kids to any ideas the parents don't want them exposed to. Parents have an absolute veto on any random creeps having physical or digital contact with their kids and doing it behind their back via discord is disgusting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Based on the generalities being thrown around, yeah, it kind of is.
I have no doubt that somewhere, some discord kitten is putting on thigh-highs for a middle-aged man. Good odds that it's the case on at least one of these very sexuality-focused servers. Compare that to the original claims that "they still want to have sex with your children as a group."
The generalities thrown around seemed to have to do specifically with the proportion of groomers present in those Discord servers. You can't base something on itself. If Discord is full of groomers, saying that it's full of groomers is hardly a "generalization" at all.
I'm extremely confident that at least 1/4 of people on those servers are older than 20, and that the older people are disproportionately interesting in "hatching eggs" compared to the younger people.
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
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