site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35257 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The rather obvious problem for the LGBT community and the rest of us is that we cannot even point out the bootleggers without being labeled. No matter how nicely you point out the connection between letting small children make sexual decisions (or that the adults are pushing, often covertly for sexual discussions and books without parents consent) the answer is you are a horrible bigot for even thinking like that. Which means either you have to reject the Baptists outright or accept them and everything they want to do. This hurts the Baptists because people don’t want strange adults teaching their kids sexual content, especially without their consent.

The rather obvious problem for the LGBT community and the rest of us is that we cannot even point out the bootleggers without being labeled. No matter how nicely you point out the connection between letting small children make sexual decisions (or that the adults are pushing, often covertly for sexual discussions and books without parents consent) the answer is you are a horrible bigot for even thinking like that.

Not only can we not point it out, but they can't point it out either. I've seen numerous L's and G's trying to point out the bootleggers, only to find themselves kicked out, because it turns out the bootleggers are the core of their coalition. Turns out after you get all the rights you always wanted, the people who stick around and don't go back to living their normal lives like all the slogans claimed, are bootleggers.

The metaphor just fails completely. The whole point is that babtists and bootleggers are manifestly opposed to each other. Not that one is a less extreme form of the other. That's a motte and Bailey.

A better example of a babtists and bootleggers coalition in this space would be "Sex Ed is bad because I don't want my daughter to have sex and get knocked up" aligning with "We need to get birth rates up."

Or more hypothetically, "Sex Ed is bad because it teaches kids about sex" lining up with a covert faction of Dr. Pedofascists' friends saying "sex Ed is bad because it teaches kids about consent and boundaries."

The whole point is that babtists and bootleggers are manifestly opposed to each other.

I would assume that the baptists in my metaphor would be horrified were they to learn why the bootleggers were so gung-ho on normalizing medical transition for children, or were they to learn about the mixed evidence on the efficacy of same, or the rate of desistance without medical intervention etc. I've personally met several advocates for trans children, and while I don't agree with all of their policy proposals or arguments, they seemed like earnest and well-intentioned people: I never suspected they were Big Pharma stooges or closet paedophiles.

Perhaps a more illuminating metaphor would be that the "baptists" are useful idiots carrying water for the bootleggers.

The more appropriate historical metaphor is probably racist Union soldiers, many of whom went Copperhead after the Emancipation proclamation. "We didn't fight for this." Or maybe German traditionalists who picked Hitler to defend against communism, only to lose it all.

Maybe the reason why I keep getting baffled by all those "actually this elite progressive is a pro-paedo" is that on the ground level, I see pretty much no increase in tolerance towards paedos. In fact the age gap taboo keeps expanding to cover age gaps between adults. If all those elites are pushing LGBT for the nefarious purpose of adding P, they don't seem to be doing a good job at all. Their successes, if any, of 50-100 years ago are completely negated.

Maybe the reason why I keep getting baffled by all those "actually this elite progressive is a pro-paedo" is that on the ground level, I see pretty much no increase in tolerance towards paedos.

Tolerance and enacting justice against are not always the same. If the surrounding edifice of the movement means one guy gets 10x the sentence he would have, but 100 that would have been detected slip on by, the criminal movement, as a whole, prospers. And that seems to be the result of the LGBT ideology. They engage in actions indistinguishable from true sexual grooming and molestation, unless you have a mind probe and a camera in the room.

Be specific. What actions and how are they connected to the LGBT movement?

Distributing erotic literature featuring sex between adults and children, that is so raunchy that members of the school board interrupt reading from it, out of concern for the children who might be present at the meeting.

It is connected to the LGBT movement because the literature is written, published, distributed, and defended when it comes under criticism, by LGBT activists.

Sounds more like 1 guy slipping by reading raunchy literature, while 100 guys get 10x sentences for anything more serious.

I don't follow what you're even saying? The person reading was a woman trying to raise awareness about the books available in school libraries... how did she slip? Who is getting 10x sentences? What does that have to do with actions indistinguishable from grooming?

I am saying you're anti-dan is making implications that there was a net increase in child molestation because of overly permissive LGBT policies without evidence.

That, if anything, would be @anti_dan, though I don't think that's the point he's making. I'm just answering the question about the specific actions indistinguishable from grooming. You do agree that the example I provided fits the criteria, right?

More comments

It's not baffling to me. If a 30yo dating a 20yo becomes taboo, it is essentially put in the same category as a 30yo dating someone even younger.

It's already there in some ways with the taboo on admitting attraction to literally anyone younger than 18. Both a person attracted to a 16yo and a person attracted to a 6yo are called pedophiles.

That baffles me. A 12 year old is mature enough to be sure of their gender identity and sexual orientation and so can ask for puberty blockers.

A 22 year old woman who sleeps with a 40 year old married man who, surprise surprise, does not dump his wife and kids to marry her is a poor little blossom who was groomed and taken advantage of by an older man.

Make up your damn minds. If 14 year olds are mature enough to fuck, get pregnant, and get abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent, then 22 year women are mature enough to realise that 30-50 year old men are not interested in them for their brains.

You're looking for consistency on the wrong axis. It's not "children are mature, adults are vulnerable". It's "this claim suits my agenda, and this separate claim suits my agenda too".

It appears to me that their mind is made up and it says that old trad white male capitalist able-bodied neurotypical cis hetero normative patriarchal [progressive stack intensifies] is the enemy; the source of all that is evil. It's a totalising blend of identity politics plus politics as identity. It's "are you with us or are you one of them?"

That's true. Incoherence is no barrier, it's a weapon.

Isn't this more a problem with the overloaded term "groomed"?

I feel comfortable saying that the 22yo was taken advantage of, that it was a bad thing, and also that there should be no criminal and limited social consequences. That's because, as you note, she had the maturity to know better, or at least to carry on without lasting damage.

Calling that "grooming" is fine, but it doesn't make it equivalent to the other use of the term: soliciting underage kids for sex. The same 40yo hanging out by a playground and convincing children to get in the van is categorically different and should be condemned in the strongest terms.

These two positions are consistent. It's conflating the two terms, or defending against such a conflation, that leads to mental gymnastics.

I don't think that a 40 year old guy having sex with a 22 year old woman is grooming in any sense. It might be taking advantage of her, it might be even murkier depending if she's a vulnerable person (is emotionally fragile, has been misused in the past, etc.) or if the older man is in a position of power/authority (I don't think Bill Clinton was right in what he did with Monica Lewinsky, even though Monica was old enough to know that fooling around with a married man was wrong).

Grooming children is a much more serious matter.

Agreed on all counts.

I'm saying that misuse of the term "grooming" is a side effect of the definitional fight, rather than people refusing to make up their damn minds.

So is this elite person a 16yo-pedo advocate or a 6yo one?

Ultra progressives still believe the latter is worse than the former, and this is reflected in the law, in discourse, in wider society.

Isn't housing convicted male sex offenders (who have raped or assaulted children) in women's prisons when they claim to be transgender (even if they have made zero effort to medically or even socially transition) a perfect example of the increasing tolerance afforded towards paedos under this rubric?

No. That's a vulnerability towards fake trans claims, not towards paedos.

It's a vulnerability towards fake trans claims which numerous paedos have benefited from.

Nevertheless, it does not benefit them because they are chomos. This sounds like a soldier argument against LGBT policies and not a real attempt to get at the mechanism of what it does.

Well, it would put my and a lot of other people's minds at ease if male convicts serving time for sex crimes were expressly forbidden from applying for transfers to women's prisons, a policy which was recently implemented in England and Wales. There is precedent for more women-friendly and less pedo- and sex offender-accommodating revisions to these policies. The failure of other jurisdictions to do the same does little to assuage my concerns that the trans lobby takes concerns about the effects of their policies on women and children seriously.

No, because I doubt any protagonist thinks of being housed in a women's prison as a perk or mercy or thinks much of the involved perpetrator at all. The thinking is that this is a great opportunity to grandstand for the principle of trans acceptance (further amplified by toxoplasma), and anyone trying to distract from this by making other considerations more salient (such as the nature of the crimes committed and what other principles they may pertain to) is concern trolling/not arguing in good faith.

I don't understand your comment. A convicted paedophile doesn't think being housed in a women's prison is a perk or mercy compared to being housed in a men's prison?

I contend that those in society that approve or argue for such housing don't think of it as a perk or mercy (because they don't think about the reason the person was imprisoned to begin with at all). Therefore it being offered does not imply a softening of societal attitudes towards convicted child abusers.

I think if you took a poll and asked people "would you prefer to spend 1 year in a men's prison, or 2 years (or 3, or 5 etc.) in a women's prison?", you would be hard pressed to find a respondent who would willingly select the former. Everyone knows they'll have an easier time in a women's prison. Child molesters presumably weren't the intended beneficiaries of the policy of housing trans women in women's prison, but they're often beneficiaries nonetheless.

If he’s not attracted to adult women then why would it be a perk? The only answer I can think of is so he doesn’t get beaten or killed by the other male inmates in a revenge attack, but in any case progressives (and many non-progressives besides, myself included) believe that extrajudicial prison violence is an embarrassment on the US prison system anyway, so that’s not a specific enough argument.

If he’s not attracted to adult women then why would it be a perk?

The canadians put a guy who raped a baby to death in a prison housing mothers with their babies. And then threatened the mothers who reported that he was telling them how much he wanted to rape their babies, because they were being transphobic, which is a crime.

There is no limiting principle to any of this. Any extreme thing you can imagine is already happening.

The only answer I can think of is so he doesn’t get beaten or killed by the other male inmates in a revenge attack

Sounds like a pretty big perk to me!

"Alright, but apart from completely negating my likelihood of being penetrated by a fellow inmate against my will; effectively nullifying my likelihood of getting beaten up or murdered by a fellow inmate; and affording me copious opportunities to intimidate, assault or rape fellow inmates - what have the Romans ever done for us?"

in any case progressives (and many non-progressives besides, myself included) believe that extrajudicial prison violence is an embarrassment on the US prison system

Even if these groups think it's an embarrassment, progressives need to justify why, in determining whether a given male inmate should be exempted from the possiblity of this happening to them, the sole deciding factor is "do they have the audacity to claim to be trans?"

If he’s not attracted to adult women then why would it be a perk?

Child molesters don't necessarily target children exclusively, and several of the people listed above had been convicted of raping/assaulting both children and adult women. "Karen White", for instance, has convictions for raping/assaulting both children and grown women, was incarcerated in a women's prison, and then (shockingly) assaulted several of his fellow inmates.

The only answer I can think of is so he doesn’t get beaten or killed by the other male inmates in a revenge attack

????

That's a big perk.

Yes, but it’s not a sexual motive. Perhaps I misunderstood the above posts, but I thought that’s what was being discussed.

it's buy one get one free! avoid having the shit kicked out of you by inmates in the male prison, and get access to fresh meat in the female prison!

Like Demi Minor who is still claiming to be a real woman suffering from transphobia in the prison system, because "she" got moved out of the women's prison after knocking up two genuine women inmates there.

To me, if your biology is functional enough that you get two women pregnant, that's a man by any reasonable definition. But news media are careful not to misgender "her" and you still get advocates believing and advocating for this poor, fragile, vulnerable trans woman.

See my reply to your comment: https://www.themotte.org/post/550/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/113438?context=8#context

Straight women (who play a critical role in setting progressivism’s sexual agenda) are incentivized to keep the acceptable age gap range as narrow as possible. A 30 year old doesn’t want to have to compete on the free market with a 21 year old. So that’s another reason to expect LGBT to not turn pro-P.

There’s plenty of room for straight women to support, condone, tolerate, or turn a blind-eye to big P Pedophilia while playing the bootlegger when it comes to older-man younger-woman relationships, especially when there are LGBTQIA+ or other ipdol considerations in play. Hence why online discussions of Henry Caville, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Elon Musk often feature female seething, but it was crickets from the women when it came to discussions on Rotherham. Always funny when the guy who literally plays Superman, a generation-defining actor known for smashing supermodels like clockwork, and the richest man on the planet and father of ten get accused of being creepy de facto incels for dating younger women.

Targeting pre-pubescent children is the central example of pedophilia and the actual dictionary definition. However, pre-pubescent children are not a source of sexual competitive threat and anxiety for 30-year-old women like 21-year-old women are.

Just-so arguments can easily be made on a Who? Whom? basis. Drag queens wanting to mix with preschoolers is Stunning and Brave, because drag queens are valid and beautiful and children (especially those of other people) should learn as such. Thirty-year-old men wanting to mix with 21-year-old women is Gross and Problematic; such men are pathetic losers who can’t handle a woman their own age so they just want someone easy to manipulate (but at the same time, young women are totally Strong and Independent #GirlBosses). After all, everyone who’s not a creepy incel knows that 30-year-old women are just as beautiful and fertile as 21-year-old women, plus their additional education and experiences only make them more desirable partners.

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