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 -
As problematic as the "groomer" smear is, I hope it's at least understood that it is also a product of many years of every nuanced, reasonable expression of concern over gender-affirming care being ignored, gaslit, and ostracized as bigotry while medical professionals and academics (plus all sorts of recruited activists from the normal world with no domain experience) ran full steam ahead with their fingers in their ears.
It is not my first preference to 'go there' with hyperbolic and catastrophizing language when discussing these issues, partly because I do have a worry about its spillover on regular LGB people who don't support giving puberty blockers to children. But since the smear seems to be the only thing that has drawn blood, forced my opposition to ocassionally pause or walk things back, and has produced a swelling of support from a subset of 'normal folk', I would be an idiot to urge for its retirement.
So, I do have to appreciate it as an argumentative tactic. Take the example of a conversation between a conservative and a TRA I posted in another comment:
"You're teaching my kids things that affect how they behave and prepare them for a world where gay and trans and queer are things they can be!"
"chad-yes.jpg, gay and trans and queer are things they can be. Do you have a problem with that? Why?"
Now, the next comment by the conservative in a reasoned fair argument is to simply give their reasons why. but you'll note that the second comment is already getting close to calling the conservative a bigot.
So often, this is where it happens, the TRA short circuits the rational debate by calling the conservative a bigot. It switches things to a winning emotional battleground, and operates as a well poisoning attack for the conservatives motives.
So what does the "Groomer" argument do? It just does the same thing- but it does it first. By phrasing the first complaint as "You're grooming my children" you get to do the same well poisoning attack before the TRA has a good place to call you a bigot. You get the preemptive strike and first mover advantage, AND you can defend your claim with the motte and baily.
In fairness, this has been a common tactic across debates. If you can’t win on the merits, imply or even outright state that the opponent is in some way morally deficient. One thing I see happening more often is that those opposed are less likely to be cowed by such claims.
More options
Context Copy link
Just wanted to say thanks to you and @DTulpa because this 3 comment chain did a better job at communicating my frustrations with the use of the term groomer while also communicating the frustrations of those who use the term groomer than basically the whole of the interactions I've seen on the Internet since the term gained popularity in the culture war.
This is why I'm so fond of this place, I love when it actually lives up to its name.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link