site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That, if anything, would be @anti_dan, though I don't think that's the point he's making. I'm just answering the question about the specific actions indistinguishable from grooming. You do agree that the example I provided fits the criteria, right?

At this point grooming has taken on such a wide definition in this sphere that you could argue (and many do) that anything involving sexuality and children in the same room should count as grooming. While I agree reading porn to children is not appropriate, I refuse to contribute to torturing the word "grooming" further. Be more specific in your objections.

My view is that "okay groomer" took hold as a response to the sneering "okay boomer" reactions by the allies etc. to any objections.

Then it annoyed that side so much, it became irresistible to keep doing it.

The way you are getting so het-up over the misuse of the word "grooming" that you're doing the "that never happened and if it did, it was a good thing" about the incidence of "LGBT literature in school library so graphic the school board didn't want it read out loud, even though they were defending having it in the school library for the kids to read it".

My view is that "okay groomer" took hold as a response to the sneering "okay boomer" reactions by the allies etc. to any objections.

Then it annoyed that side so much, it became irresistible to keep doing it.

This seems like a pretty accurate summation of the phenomenon from what I observed about this phrase the past few years, and I still find it fascinating that it took off the way it did. My initial response when seeing the term thrown about was that it was a weak attempt at creating a weaponized meme, something doomed to fail due to its cringey-ness and blatant bad faith. All the self-proclaimed trans activists had to do was laugh at and ignore it, and it would go away, with folks like James Lindsay and such who spread the meme sheepishly going back to their caves with their tails between their legs and properly embarrassed by their out-of-touch attempt at this weaponized meme.

But that didn't happen. Instead, the response was as if it had struck a nerve, and calling out the term for being outright false or at the least hyperbolic to an absurd and unreasonable extent became incredibly important. Of course, the very way that the meme gains power is through causing the accused people to respond in this exact way, and so here we are, right in the thick of "what really is a groomer?" discourse.

Perhaps I should find it boring rather than fascinating at this point, given that political activists being unable to help themselves from sabotaging their own cause by falling right into their opponents' well lit, well advertised traps seems to be the norm rather than the exception, but seeing such self sabotage in a context where someone clearly has some investment int not sabotaging themselves is still fascinating to me.

I would suggest you don't ascribe to me what I never said.

I would suggest you don't ascribe to me what I never said

arjin-ferman: They're putting material in school libraries that is considered obscene by the very school board permitting it

You: Sounds more like 1 guy slipping by reading raunchy literature

Did you say the literal words? No. Is your reply in the spirit of the kind of denials I've seen? Yes.

Well, I'd point out that to the extent the word "grooming" has been tortured, it was first done by the progressive movement. But this case seems to fit even the stricter definition of "sexual grooming". From what I heard showing porn to kids is a common tactic pedophiles employ to break down children's boundaries.

Well, I'd point out that to the extent the word "grooming" has been tortured, it was first done by the progressive movement.

I'm not a fan of that either.