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 -
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.
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?
There are two prongs to this:
1: Yes, citizens spreading their ideology is legitimate. It can also be evil, if the ideology is evil. Whether legal or not, evil should be combated, especially when it personally influences one's children. The debate then is whether the LGBT ideology is evil. It would also be legitimate for citizens to spread Nazism, but that would be evil, and I would like it fought however possible.
2: The issues around schools are entirely separate from what is considered for citizens to do. It is legitimate for someone who works as a teacher to spread their ideology, but not in their capacity as a public school teacher. It would not be acceptable for a public school teacher to secretly teach their students about God, hold prayers, tell them to hide it from their parents, bring in crosses for the kids to wear etc. The same goes for any LGBT ideology.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link