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 -
They are though that's the thing, Prohibiting it is why DeSantis has been described by CNN the Washington Post and David French as "a Fascist" trampling upon American freedoms. Then there was that hilarious self-goal where having insisted that they weren't showing explicit material to minors, parents posting pics of the hand-outs got slapped down for posting explicit content.
The problem with the "Groomer" claim is not that it is stupid and distracting, it's that it has struck a corde with the normies.
I mean, if you have evidence of widespread "teachers taking classrooms of children to drag shows", "elementary school students being taught how to give good blowjobs", or even general efforts to make children queer or trans in schools that aren't that extreme but are still stronger than I say happen above, I'd just be wrong! And, if such exists, I'd want to see it. But "desantis is a fascist, says david french" is not that.
I don't feel like I should have to present evidence that it "was widespread", as the outsized reaction to it's prohibition has demonstrated that it was at least in the possibility space. Likewise, a problem doesn't need to be widespread to be worth trying to minimize or solve.
I also notice that you continue to dance around the questions pointed out above.
or
Evidence is generally useful in demonstrating the truth of claims!
What truth?
What Claims?
I would like to think that "don't show sexually explicit material to grade-schoolers" and especially "don't do it without talking to the parents first" would be a fairly uncontroversial stance but apparently that is not the timeline we live in.
This is not a "when did you stop beating your wife?" type scenario, this is one side saying "it is now illegal to beat your wife" and the other side replying with "how dare you impinge on my rights".
I also notice that you continue to dance around the questions pointed out above.
this is a bizzare conversation.
i do not think a single person should 'transition'. i've said this many times.
That's not the question you're dancing around.
Which questions are you referring to? I read the above conversation and didn't see anything aside from "This is why are you taking elementary school kids to drag shows and talking to them about how to give a good blow-job if you aren't trying to sexualize them? Why are you urging them not to tell their parents if you didn't know that you might be doing something their parents would object to?" and "What truth? What Claims?" and neither make sense
The first
twothree. What about them doesn't make sense? You tried to push back on one of them a little bit, and he explained why your argument does not address the question.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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link