site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   34932 thread views

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Be specific. What actions and how are they connected to the LGBT movement?

Distributing erotic literature featuring sex between adults and children, that is so raunchy that members of the school board interrupt reading from it, out of concern for the children who might be present at the meeting.

It is connected to the LGBT movement because the literature is written, published, distributed, and defended when it comes under criticism, by LGBT activists.

Sounds more like 1 guy slipping by reading raunchy literature, while 100 guys get 10x sentences for anything more serious.

I don't follow what you're even saying? The person reading was a woman trying to raise awareness about the books available in school libraries... how did she slip? Who is getting 10x sentences? What does that have to do with actions indistinguishable from grooming?

I am saying you're anti-dan is making implications that there was a net increase in child molestation because of overly permissive LGBT policies without evidence.

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".

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

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats