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 -
Can’t it be both?
“Groomer” is an insult and an attack. Both sides know this. It would be foolish to deny it.
BUT I think it’s also an apt description of a certain pattern of behavior that Very Online trans people engage in. Kid joins a discord, says he’s having trouble fitting in with the other guys at school and he doesn’t feel “manly” enough, people start telling him “hey why don’t you use she/her pronouns for a while and see how it goes, oh by the way there’s a guide for DIY HRT pinned in the #resources channel”… I think it’s accurate to refer to this as “grooming”.
It’s kind of like how “stupid” can be both insulting and true.
Call it "proselytizing".
You know perfectly well that "grooming" as an insult typically means something like "mentally conditioning a vulnerable victim to agree to a sexual relationship with the perpetrator". By talking about "grooming", you implicitly bring up this sexual aspect of the conditioning. Do trans activists want to have sex with trans children?
If you mean "mentally conditioning a vulnerable victim to adopt the same belief as the perpetrator" instead, that's what churches do. Physical harm? Circumcision and Hussainia qualify. Targeting minors? Actually banned in Israel. Negative connotations? Everyone dislikes JWs going "Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior?"
I would once again like to remind people that at the height of metoo it was not uncommon to use "grooming" to describe consensual relations between adults, and that progressive literature used a broader definition of the word until the it was used against them, 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."
Converting other people's kids behind their parents back is a big nono, and would at the very least get you labelled a cult, and no one would balk at "groomer" either, but that's not what most churches do.
More options
Context Copy link
I completely agree! Trans ideology is a type of religion, and what they do is a type of proselytizing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link