site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37135 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And who is advocating kids not reporting abuse like that?

I didn't say advocating kids not reporting it, I said teaching kids it is shameful to. By associating discomfort with being touched with homophobia and teaching that homophobia is bad, they end up teaching kids that their feelings of discomfort being touched are shameful thus making them afraid to report it.

That doesn't follow. We teach kids about bad touching regardless of who from.

This is a laughable assertion. If even 10% of the 10% least troubling trans tictok stuff was adult men doing the same with little girls we'd call a spade a spade.

I strongly disagree. We teach kids about bad touching in certain situations (notably straight men touching girls) and completely downplay and excuse it in others (notably women and gay men touching boys). Or, at the very least, that's what my experience was growing up being repeatedly told that such touching (including on multiple occasions directly grabbing my penis) wasn't sexual and I was being too sensitive. Maybe the movement has gotten better in the years since, but I don't see it from my perspective.

Gay men are still notorious for being handsy and not recognizing the word ‘no’, at least in their own communities.

Never come across that in all my years dealing with CSE or something ant of my own kids were told. Every poece of literature, every lesdon was always about where was being touched not by who.

Certainly not by men, who were if anything more reported. Even for actually innocent things.

If there is a bias, it would probably be towards women on boys being less serious, which is i agree deeprooted culturally seen as not being as bad. But all the official stuff tries to counteract that. With varying degrees of success.

Every poece of literature, every lesdon was always about where was being touched not by who.

To an extent, I agree that's what is taught in lessons, though I think the emphasis on female over male victimization in such lessons as well as the greater emphasis on bigotry bad in other lessons works against it. But what's taught in lessons matters little when boys actual reports are downplayed and ignored, when boys are told that them being creeped out by someone's lesser behavior is no big deal and that making a big deal about it is shameful (due to bigotry) they learn to not report later more egregious behaviors expecting the same treatment.

Certainly not by men, who were if anything more reported. Even for actually innocent things.

Yes, men are often reported for innocent behavior. This is I think rooted in the same bias that causes boys' complaints to not be taken seriously: men are seen as sexual actors, so their behavior is seen as more sexual while behavior directed at them is seen as less sexual.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats