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 -
Underdefined.
Progressives decided to fight on the hill of children's book about leather daddies, but outside of schools he doesn't seem to care. Vance might.
He just appointed a married gay Huguenot to the Secretary of the Treasury. Lumping them all together is what generates the confusion, and contributed to the backlash that got Trump reelected.
Funny how quickly homeschooling went from left-hippy coded to right-coded.
He owned a casino! Politicians are no stranger to hypocrisy but he doesn't seem opposed to gambling. And given the disaster that is sportsbetting, he probably should be.
Can you show me which children’s book about leather daddies you’re talking about?
Grandad's Pride, scroll down to "Reviews with pictures" if you're curious. Or here's an article with a description:
I'm pretty live and let live and not exactly put-off by collars and garters, where appropriate. But I'm baffled by the fact anyone thought this book was a good idea, and anyone that green-lit it should be on a watchlist. I wouldn't complain about- what was it, penguins with two dads that was popular for a while? The line between encouraging acceptance and being porn-brained creep is not thin; there's a great big flashing wall between those, and yet here we are.
If you want to say conservatives abused the "groomer" thing, I'll agree. Unfortunately, there's just enough wackadoos that pull this shit and useful idiots that defend it to provide a good supply of ammunition.
But their calculus isn't following that line; instead, it's just a sliding scale of "fuck you".
No kid is going to think that's sexual; but they are going to realize it's objectively ugly and obnoxious, and suggesting they should accept ugliness/obnoxiousness from certain types of privileged adults in their lives because it's correct to do so is the actual problem (and the ultimate goal) here.
That is just as destructive as the sexual misbehavior when men do it, for the same reasons; conservatives are failing to punish that, trying to frame women's (and womanly) bad behavior through the lens of men's (and manly) bad behavior (which is what those who use "groomer" are attempting to invoke), and most people instinctively understand that description isn't correct, which is why it fails.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link