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 -
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?
Because I think both fascism and pedophilia are bad?
I mean the chances are I'll be dead so I won't be dealing with much of anything. It doesn't seem likely either the right will really embrace fascism or the left pedophilia any time soon in my view.
And you didn't think, say, referring 14 year olds for a double mastectomy is bad 10 years ago?
Trans people weren't invented 10 years ago you know. Neither were areas where kids making medical choices having to be navigated. If a 14 yo kid thinks they are trans and their doctors and parents agree then it's a good thing to let them do it as far as I am concerned now and then. It has pretty much zero impact on me, and if it ends up being a mistake, well life is full of mistakes,s ome you can undo and some you cannot.
If the parents disagree then we can do what we do in those circumstances put it before a court to decide if the kid has the ability to make the choice. Same as when we have to deal with Jehovah's Witness kids and blood transfusions or kids wanting to emancipate themselves. Or wherever else.
This is a solved problem, that is no where near as big an issue (in my opinion of course) as being made out.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing for a 14yo Jehovah's Witness to die rather than get a blood transfusion because of their beliefs? The general ruling in the US is that it is bad and the state can override both parents and child and force treatment for the good of the child. Why not have the same rules?
At a society level it's barely a blip.
Given how trans activists even now often claim that the only intervention on the table at that age is puberty blockers, I'll go out on a limb and say 10 years ago it would sound just as outlandish as pedophile rights.
I agree we might not live to see pedophile rights being argued explicitly for again, I think there are good chances we'll see the trans debate being dropped like a hot potato. If that happens, do you think you'll continue saying it was never a big deal and should be allowed, or will you start arguing that progressives never really supported it?
So is adults having consensual sex with minors, but it's still illegal.
Except in states that allow child marriage with parents permission of course. Then its legal.As it could be for a trans kid seeking surgery underage. Like i said the concept is not new even if the presentation is.
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