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 -
Possible grammar brainfart. You said that expressing the idea that "Gender Queer" is not dangerous would mark you as a pedophile. I don't see the word "pedophile" being used here, to describe people expressing that belief.
Can you help me out? I see him discussing a specific type of behavior, which seems to be unique to the left. I don't see him saying the left is uniquely bad in general.
These two points are contradictory. If I misunderstood you, believing that you had specific people in mind but are avoiding addressing them directly, then I understand the term, and used it correctly.
You know what it is, because you read the article where this is clearly stated:
Well, when I google "gender queer" and "pedophile" I get many examples
That is precisely what I meant by "my out group is uniquely bad"
No, you aren't, but there is no point in discussing it anymore.
Thank you, I missed that, but why not point that out in the first place?
More importantly, this really doesn't help you much, because even Wood is using "grooming" to refer to an attempt to prep someone to consent to sex. So, if I say, "Joe wants kids to read book X because he is a groomer," am I not saying that Joe is trying to prep kids to have sex with him, and hence that he is sexually attracted to kids?
Oh. The sandwiching of that statement between references to "people here" made me think you also meant this is how people here would react.
Ok. If I said "uniquely bad", I'd mean that the level of badness on the part of that group is higher than all other groups I can think of, not that there is a certain type of bad behavior that is unique to it, but is compensated by bad behavior on the parts of other groups, that are unique to them.
If we go with your definition, I disagree with the statement "OTOH claims that 'my out group is uniquely bad' are generally deserving of great skepticism, for obvious reasons". Different groups act differently, there's nothing surprising about it, and people should not be skeptical of a claim like that.
I suppose I didn't think someone would just skim the article looking for the first thing that they think would disprove what I said, and come back here to call me dishonest? Why did you call me dishonest instead of just asking why I thought she was an adult?
Sure it does! You were insisting the term groomer only refers to pedophiles, and now we agree it's flexible enough to cover sex between adults. We're not that far from agreeing that psy-opping adolescent girls into getting double mastectomies might also be grooming.
I didn't skim the article looking for evidence that would disprove what you said; I in fact looked for evidence that supported what you said, because I assumed that is why you linked to it.
No, we are nowhere near that, unless someone does that in order to get them to have sex with them. That would be grooming, but so too would be giving them a tootsie pop in order to get them to have sex with him. Or giving them advice with the intent to get them to have sex with him. It is the intent to convince someone to have sex which makes it grooming.
If that was the case, why did you call me dishonest instead of just asking why I thought she was an adult?
If the "pedophilia" part of the definition can be relaxed, why not the "for sex" part, especially since we're talking about minors in the latter case? It's not hard to find pre-"ok, groomer" articles that don't restrict "grooming" to sexual behavior? For example:
Grooming is the predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position that makes them more isolated, dependent, likely to trust, and more vulnerable to abusive behavior. Grooming is a insidious predatory tactic, utilized by abusers. Grooming is practiced by Narcissists, Antisocial predators, con-artists and sexual aggressors, who target and manipulate vulnerable people for exploitation.:
In this phase, the predator will start to use the target to meet their needs. With children, this is generally sexual in nature, but predators will use victims for money, to accomplish morally questionable things for them, or even just to fill an emotional need.
While grooming is often associated with sexual abuse, it can be as simple as filling an emotional need. For example, a boss grooming a direct report to fill a narcissistic need for superiority. When a target fights back, or confronts their offender about what is taking place, the groomer will use gaslighting tactics to keep them within their control.
Insisting that grooming has never been used to describe non-sexual behavior seems like literal gaslighting to me.
Yes, I am sure it has sometimes been used in other ways. But when used in the context of teaching children about sex, do you really, truly, think it is meant in those ways? Because that is what we are talking about.
Yes. Especially when psy-opping adolescent girls into double mastectomies is a big part of what we're discussing.
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