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 -
Wait, are you missing context here? The grooming gangs were grooming the girls into prostitution using the tried and tested "boyfriend" method. Some of Muslim men in question WERE their pimps, while some were "johns". The "boyfriends" would then sell access to them to other men for drugs and money. Which is how the police often came in contact with the girls, and wrote them off as drug addicted prostitutes, undesirables, and habitual liars.
So strong coordination by a pimp is exactly what we had here. The "boyfriend" model (for grooming) and the so called "party" model for groups of men with coerced girls is common throughout the world, unfortunately. From Epstein to Diddy probably.
About 20% of members of these gangs in England are Asian (which is a strong over-representation compared to demographics, just to be clear) but simply due to numbers most grooming and prostitution gangs in England are mostly white, largely with the exact same MO. The actual methods used are not unusual at all within the CSE playbook.
So there was coordination here, that is in fact the whole point. If there wasn't they wouldn't be grooming gangs. The pimp would bring a girl to one "party", then the next and so on.
More options
Context Copy link