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 -
The priestly class is unpopular. There's lots of people who believe in identity politics of one variety or another(usually not DR approved). And the DR is priestly class. Normies don't want their kids around LBGTs, they don't want them taking after uberintellectualism, they don't want them to be 'nerds'. They want their sons to be football stars that get good jobs in town and get married to make grandbabies.
Normies are a lot less bothered about LGB than you imply by lumping it in together with T.
The case against homosexuality (both in its Abrahamic and secular versions) is based on the same logic as the case against post-sexual revolution liberated straight sex, and normies find that logic unpersuasive. Empirically, when the LGBs were offered normalisation on the same basis as the sluts, rakes, unrepentant adulterers, frivorcers etc. they took it, and aren't doing anyone any more harm than the straights did when they took up ubiquitous non-procreative sex. Despite gay marriage, straight marriage is in a better state than it has been in since the introduction of no-fault divorce. This is happening within the plain sight of normies and their families, so they know.
You can make a secular socially conservative case against sexual liberation for gays and straights (empirically, it crashed the birthrate and launched a bastard epidemic). You can (and should, if you take the Bible seriously) make a conservative Christian case against it. But making either of those cases makes you like like a wierdo - it is the epitome of normie-unfriendly conservatism. Given what we can see in front of our noses, arguing for sexual restraint for gays only just makes you look like a self-hating closet case seeking moral support. (It is also intellectually incoherent, but normies don't care about that.)
LGB (but not T) is the one early-C21 woke issue where normie public opinion has swung behind the woke position.
T is different, because the difference between men and women matters in the way that maintaining a ban on one particular subset of non-procreative sex doesn't.
I think you're way overestimating the popularity of gay men. Opinions seem to run the gamut from 'they're all closeted pedophiles' to 'it's weird and gross but what adults do amongst themselves is none of my business', with the mode somewhere around 'fetishistic plague rats'.
No. To many women, and not just urban millenials and zoomers, gayness is equivalent to goodness. This is not universal but also not rare at all. The gay man is the man with all his toxic masculinity stripped away. The gay man is docile and domesticated. The gay man is an ally against the patriarchy. The gay man has the positive qualities of the woman. The gay man is not a threat. The gay man is gentle and good to have around. The gay man is not an inscrutable, terryfingly physical, emotionally unavailable, violently competitive machine. The gay man is not to blame for everything that is wrong in the world. The gay man did not ruin the woman's life. The gay man has no intention to enslave a woman for her fertility. The gay man is man as he should be.
More options
Context Copy link
Your understanding of the distribution of opinions is wildly incorrect. You are taking the long tail of the actual distribution and declaring it the median.
I think to have a good feel on this, you need to disassemble the problem:
My intuition is that normies have a mostly good opinion of gay people, but that part of it is based on them thinking that the average gay guy is more "normal" than what they actually are.
Is your claim he's not an assless chapped degenerate?
Maybe I don't have enough context, but yes? He certainly seems to be hated by the most libertine parts of the LGBT community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan
Lists him looking for anonymous bareback sex with other HIV+ men and self identification as a 'bear'. Seems more degenerate that not though I've no specific evidence for assless chaps.
My suspicion is the degeneracy we see and is reported is the tip of the degeneracy iceberg, the reality is wider and deeper.
Bug chasing will scare the
hoesnormies.He may be a very median 'gay'. The median is still very degenerate.
I would imagine there's a large age component to this. All of my gay friends are in long-term committed relationships at this point (early 30s). And I'm not sure the average gay 20yo is much more degenerate than the average straight male at the same age would be if they had the chance.
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
Perhaps this is filter bubble reasons, but most secular-ish normie parents I know do not want their sons to have gay football coaches, do not like the ‘gayBC’ agenda in entertainment, would think a gay son is a parenting failure, believe that trends originating in the gay community is enough reason to boycott them in ipso, don’t make a massive distinction between gays and trans. These are people that if they do go to church don’t pray at home, expect their kids to cohabit(even as they think the time of doing this should be shorter) before marriage, wear bikinis etc.
I think this is rural catholic filter bubble (whereas AFAIK @MadMonzer is London cosmopolitan filter bubble). My secular-ish normie parents grew up in 1960/1970s Britain, where almost all the best-dressed, most witty, popular, aristocratic men were gay. Being gay is essentially aspirational: they're secretly quite keen on the idea of the idea of having a gay child and are applying slight, unthinking pressure to my bi-questioning sibling in ways that make me uncomfortable. I don't know how they'd feel about gay teachers and they're certainly not into pride or anything; they're conservative in most other ways.
(However, as with many things in Britain, it can be very difficult to distinguish between 'runs a permanent crimestop filter' and 'is actually enthusiastic' even for close family).
I have access via in-laws to the Reform-curious rural UK filter bubble, and there the reaction to happily married lesbians (two thirds of same-sex marriages in the UK are women) is "so what" and the reaction to flamboyantly gay men being flamboyantly gay in public is bemused eye-rolling as long as they remain fully clothed.
If Nigel Farage thought that gay-bashing would gain votes for Reform, he would do it. He doesn't.
Certainly gay-bashing would be a terrible move. I have a vague sense, however, that the very solidity of the 'so what' reaction is disguising less comfort than people are willing to let on. I have no proof for this, it's just based on myself and on a sense that people are...slightly too careful about the subject. The very speed with which even right-wingers tell you they don't give a shit kind of makes me feel like they do, actually, give a little bit of a shit.
Of course this is the loosest kind of vibes-based psychoanalysing, so feel free to discard it completely if you want to. But I don't think we've ever seen anything like the absolute closing of ranks that happened over gay marriage. In about a decade we went from a world in which a younger-me was mildly chastised for being too fervently pro gay marriage to a world where even the suggestion that gay marriage might not have been a great idea provokes universal condemnation. I think everyone remembers proto-cancelling incidents like the defenestration of Tim Fallon and everyone knows how dangerous is can be to be associated with even a whiff of homophobia.
I always feel that Britain is a lot like Japan in some ways. The social pressure and desire to conform can be so strong that there is very little gap between the consensus and people's conscious opinions. In the same way that I'm pretty sure liberal democratic Japan could turn into a Maoist communist state in a decade given a change of leadership, I think the same is true of Britain. Change the right few minds, let it cascade and I think a lot of people might suddenly 'discover' an entirely new set of opinions that would not necessarily be any more 'real' than the previous ones but would feel just as sincere to their owners.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rural I will grant you, but I was specifically pointing at non-tradcath friends to avoid that aspect.
But you live in a traditionally catholic area, right? I assumed that your secular friends were Catholic-tinged, so to speak, even though not actually catholic. Whereas for example my parents are secular but they're Church of England secular. Or in California they would be Silicon Valley secular.
I have family ties to rural southern Louisiana(ultra Catholic) but I don’t live there. I doubt the region has majority support for gay marriage but it wasn’t what I was addressing. Most of my extended family lives in Dallas far burbs or traditionally conservative Protestant Tyler. Yes, random fishing buddies in Tyler or Forney or Weatherford or whatever are not a representative sample of American views on ‘the gays’, but it’s not due to Catholicism.
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
Your original claim was that "Normies don't want their kids around LBGTs." That implies something more than just finding male-on-male buttsex gross.
A quick google suggests that "parents campaign against trans teacher" comes up with a lot of examples of normies campaigning against exposing their children to T. "Parents campaign against gay teacher" gets you stories about muslims and fundies.
If you think that trying to keep gay men away from kids is normie-friendly, you have to wonder why Florida Republicans (who are perfectly happy to run on anti-trans messaging) get cross when you call the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act a "Don't Say Gay" law.
It's always hard to understand populations. We can't just get into their brains and observe what they really think. We can see survey results, but those are tricky and sometimes only get what people think they're "allowed" to say. See also the constant discussion of "shy Tory/Trumper". As such, one ought to be very sensitive to the fact that much of the population was really just bullied into a position on the topic. It's extremely difficult to actually tease out how many people really believe it or have really internalized it as true. It is entirely possible that as people see that the exact same specious arguments are being marshaled in favor of the T (with the expectation that folks actually believed and internalized it WRT the LGB, and thus the further expectation that it will be slam dunk successful), they will find it less and less social suicide to simply reject the entire fallacious underpinning. They won't even have to immediately say, "...and yes, rejecting this underpinning means also rejecting it in the case of LGB, also." At least, not at first; not overtly. That could come more slowly, as it becomes more socially acceptable. Or, of course, as we've seen on some other issues, it could come quickly in a preference cascade.
It's just extremely difficult to know which of those possible worlds we live in, given the obviously impossibly difficult measurement problem. Obviously, any public group that is organizing and trying to build political momentum is going to focus on the issues where they think they are the strongest, but along the way, they'll be pushing for underlying worldviews that have implications. It is common for them to know what those implications are, to believe that those implications are, indeed, true, but to not want to draw attention to it until they have succeeded enough where they are strongest and subtly changed the nature of the conversation along the way.
EDIT: I forgot that I should also point to the fact that those same people are forthright about the fact that they did just bully people into believing something in order to win political victories, that they didn't really believe it themselves, that many people don't actually believe it, and they'd love it if we could just kind of forget that their sus claims were "critical", because they'd really rather that no one go back and reconsider in light of reality.
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