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 -
This is false.
The Florida 'Democrats are pedophiles' law attempts to conflate discussions about the existence of gay or transgender people with exposing them to sexually explicit material:
funds may be made available to develop, implement, facilitate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or literature for children under the age of 10, including hosting
or promoting any program, event, or literature involving
sexually-oriented material, or any program, event, or literature that exposes children under the age of 10 to nude
adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious
dancing.
Okay, I'm on board.
term ‘‘sexually-oriented material’’ means any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity,
any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of
human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.
Ohhh, I see the trojan horse now. So, for example, showing a story with a gay couple would be a discussion about sexual orientation, wouldn't it? Or a discussion about why boys have to wear pants while girls can wear dresses would be skirting (heh) dangerously close to verboten language. Essentially, you're claiming that talking about the existence of gay or trans people is 'sexually-oriented' material in a way that discussing heterosexual relationships is not. Republicans want to pass something like this nationally.
If we gave voice to the central majority rather than the extremists on either margin, there's probably a course to be charted. I think most people are uncomfortable with letting 6 year olds opt for irreversible surgery, and virtually all with CPS agents dragging away your child because you questioned their pronouns. Conversely, I also think most people are uncomfortable with a China-like security apparatus trying to memory-hole the existence of gay people.
So the prior article did seem to be about sports stuff at a quick glance, but this one
is a good example of exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Not just restricting it, or putting more onerous requirements, but straight up classifying it as child abuse is the kind of "Fuck you" offensive maneuver I was thinking about.
I honestly don't think that discussing heterosexual relationships is something that schools like doing in the first place. There are too many kids for whom that's a sore spot. On a personal level, I spent a couple of years reaching out to teachers to ask them to be cautious around the topic of "moms", and I was repeatedly reassured that it wasn't likely to be an issue, I was far from the only parent whose kids had a family related emotional disturbance, and teachers were all trained to be sensitive about that stuff. Even when they do a Mother's Day activity, it's quickly glossed over as "pick a special lady in your life, a mom, grandma, aunt, family friend". Grandparent's Day is Special Person's Day, etc. Instead, they just use groups of racially and gender diverse kids as the cast in all the short reading pieces, maybe with a teacher or generic adult. In that context, throwing in some examples of gay families where "Daddy and Daddy still love each other!" leaves a bit of a different impression.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link