site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Your very broad definition of healthy/unhealthy captures so many behaviors that aren't socially, let alone legally, actionable that it is your definition that is wildly unconstrained. If Gay Sex is to be discouraged in the same way that donuts are discouraged: that is to say that from my office there are to be five shops specifically devoted to gay sex within a mile radius, that offering gay sex as a polite tip to a power line crew restoring a blackout near my house was normal, that TV ads constantly drove me towards new varieties of commercial gay sex, then I guess you'd be at equivalent levels of marketing something that is "unhealthy."

Well, maybe what I should have said was "a clear view of the question probably requires us to taboo the word 'unhealthy'" and try to figure out what is really being asked, but it's never quite obvious to me when is the best time to make that move, as it can seem a bit uncharitable to open with "I don't think the question you're asking is the one I should answer."

There's more I could probably say (e.g. about the number of rainbow flags likely flying within a mile radius of your office, if donut shops are that densely packed where you are) but I think the main thing is, "my" definition is not wildly unconstrained--rather, what people decide are "actionable" versus "nonactionable" health choices is wildly unprincipled, increasingly governed by culture war battle lines (see bans on: gas stoves, pornography, sugary beverages, masks...), and I'm just pointing that out.

e.g. about the number of rainbow flags likely flying within a mile radius of your office, if donut shops are that densely packed where you are

To be honest, Scout's Honor, you'd be wrong. In terms of publicly displayed flags at businesses/institutions rather than at homes, I can think of two? The one soft-Prot church by the golf course, and my yoga studio. Probably a third somewhere in my favorite coffee shop, half the staff is visibly queer, but I don't actually remember seeing it. If we're counting private houses that number increases somewhat, but then I'd need to include grocery stores and gas stations that sell donuts even if they aren't the main product. I actually think I see fewer pride flags than commercial establishments selling donuts in my average day.

I often find myself agreeing with @Walterodim here, and think a lot of my disconnect with the more rabidly anti-woke posters on themotte is that I don't live in an area or work in an industry where I face constant pressure to conform to woke shibboleths.

Where you are: how is the idea that gay people should be celibate viewed? How is it viewed if a gay person chooses celibacy because he believes that gay relationships aren't for him and that it wouldn't be fair to an opposite-sex partner if he was in a relationship with her? What if it's a lesbian choosing celibacy...perhaps because of religious belief? They don't think that other people's relationships are any of their business and support people being able to do what they want, gay marriage, all that...but believe that their God wants them to be celibate, or are maybe celibate out of personal conviction.

Kookie. Nobody believes that around me.

Homosexuality exists but homosexuals should be celibate was a fallback entrenchment in a war that was lost a decade ago. It was a counter argument to "Born This Way" which was so effective it is now almost outmoded on the left. While the Right is circling away from it with the Groomer meme.

Yeah. The Groomer meme... has some truth to it with fetishizing and making transness fashionable. That is bullshit: hawking irreversible medical interventions to kids as anything other than a last resort. If Johnny wants to wear dresses and be called Suzie, fine, maybe that's his generation's rebellion. Same for Johnny taking Mike to the prom. I'm gathering that that's commonplace and acceptable where you are, and that many kids tell their parents that they're not straight...and get a "That's OK, we still love you, do you need a ride to soccer practice?" from them.

As I understand it, you guys are in a liberal stronghold, a super-blue area. Which is different from the suburban-Northeast tossup territory I grew up in. You could see Trump signs, MAGA bumper stickers, rainbow flags, and Hillary or Biden signs on the same street.

As I understand it, you guys are in a liberal stronghold, a super-blue area.

Nope. Purple-est township in the swing county of the central swing state.

Moreover, my point isn't that Groomer is or isn't an accurate meme, it's merely that it is incompatible with the "Gay, but Celibate" meme. "Gay, but Celibate" assumes one must be Born This Way, Groomer assumes that one can be, you know, Groomed into LGBTQWERTY activities.

"Gay, but Celibate" could also mean that you dislike straight sex, think gay sex is attractive, and don't want to act on or modify your desires.