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 -
And with this simple argument, the groomer discourse became 1000% justified.
Also, the movement went way beyond merely ensuring non-discrimination. You need to also explain how and for what purpose it went as far as it did.
No it's not. Things didn't move much since then until the mid 2010's.
Still not grooming. Unless previous pushes for homosexuality not to be accepted is also grooming in the same way. Goose, gander etc. Taboo the term, its not helpful here to avoid heat.
And the reason you have to push is simple.
Consider you want gay marriage to be legal and accepted. If you push to just there and stop and your opponents push bsck, then that is a live battlefield, you can lose it in no time. See Dobbs et al.
So you have to push the front beyond there. You have to be fighting on the next hill which is say the Hill of Trans acceptance, not the Plain of Gay marriage. And if you want Trans acceptance then you need to be fighting in the Valley of Trans Kids. The stable things you want accepted have to be in the rear view mirror.
Same how chunks of conservatism fight for Abortion bans even if the average Republican prefers 12 weeks or whatever. You have to be prepared to push past your goal if you want to keep it. Distributed motte and bailey tactics almost.
The LGBT movement was explicitly fighting for pedophile rights in the past. It is just as "simple and straightforward" that they will move onto it again at some point as it was that they moved from gay rights to trans rights.
So again, we should never take the progressive movement at it's word. They will push beyond any compromise they are offering, either because it's "simple and straightforward" or just in case someone pushes back. Therefore your arguments about "still not grooming" should be ignored.
But that's not just progressives that's EVERY movement. So your argument is a fully generalized one against any movement including conservatism. Thus it's not useful as a critique. Every movement should be taken at its word AND understood that that word is not necessarily going to be the end point.
Can the left trust the right will stop at 13 weeks for Abortion or will those who want it to be banned entirely win? Both are true that most Republicans might want some point at 10-13 weeks AND that the loudest and most energetic wing will push for more and may as the moderates are less bothered, win.
We're not talking about individuals here, so talking about trust is pointless. Compromise is the point at which the opposition has enough support to push back. That's the balancing factor.
I don't know about EVERY. Surely there are groups that would respect a compromise. In any case it seems that now you're agreeing the progressive movement is pro-grooming, and your only counter is that conservatives want to restrict abortion even more. What does the latter have to do with the former? Why didn't you just concede from the start?
I disagree. There are group dynamics, and there can be trust between groups.
What I didn't say was that child sexual abuse is one of the battlefields the progressive movement is aiming towards. It isn't. The reasons they want to keep being trans secret from parents is to PROTECT the child from "abusive" parents. Not to abuse them themselves. Some bad-faith actors CAN certainly take advantage of that to actually abuse the kids themselves, and the progressive movement is likely to push for even more of a split between "abusive" parents and their kids which may also increase that vulnerability.
However, in my direct experience predators will exploit everything. Religious parents? Tell the kid that they will disown them and it is their fault. Open parents? Tell the kid that this is entirely normal and there is no need to tell them. In theory some kind of perfect balance would be best, but neither side will come up with that on their own. That's the perfectly balanced compromise and probably impossible at a societal scale.
Trust between groups is sand through an hourglass, because the members of the group will change over time. Principled Libertarians may be a group that would respect compromise but there are approximately 8 of them, so it doesn't unfortunately matter.
On what grounds are you claiming that? Like I said, they did explicitly fight for it historically, and it is simple and straightforward that they'll resume in the future.
And some right wing groups fought for white supremacy and fascism. Does that mean saying the Republicans are nazis is true? I understand its a good rhetorical tactic, but its not true.
Now is it possible some pedophile group takes over the progressive movement? Sure, it seens highly unlikely to me but anything is possible. But just as I don't oppose Republicans because they might be taken over by actual fascists in the future, i wouldn't oppose progressives now.
If it happens (and both seem super unlikely) then it can be dealt with then.
Why is this logic only applied to pedophilia/Nazism, and not to the jump from gay rights to trans rights?
If it happens, why do you think you will be "dealing with it" instead of supporting it?
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