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 -
You seem to object to the technicality of 'grooming'.
But what if teachers did want to have sex with kids and did try to influence them to have sex with them?
They would proceed in the same manner that teachers are currently doing with the trans questions. They're finding the 'trans' kids and helping them come out to their actual identity that was hidden all along.
Except in this case they're finding the kids that just happen to really want to have sex with adults.
Not forcing any kids, just helping them find 'who they truly are' inside.
Would you be opposed to it, and on what ground?
Then that would be bad and then be grooming yes. Adults should not have sex with children, so I would oppose it on those grounds.
Why not? What's your moral justification against it (and how does it not apply to puberty blockers)?
What about children with children? If the teachers were to have practical sex-ed organizing orgies between pupils? Perhaps filming for educational purposes as well.
Because I intuit that is wrong. If puberty blockers are a medical treatment for a medical condition then they are probably ok. But it would probably depend on the age of the child, the situation they were in and the opinion of medical professionals. I imagine sometimes they would be ok and sometimes not.
So if a medical professional built up on the work of Wilhelm Reich and confidently came out with something like 'sexually repressed' youth and diagnosed your child, would it be okay for them to get some much needed relief?
How many medical professionals need to get together for you to agree that this is fine? What if all the medical professionals who disagree get banned from X?
There are a lot of hurdles to cross for sex to be a treatment. Especially with the existence of masturbation. We generally don't accept it as a treatment for adults, so i simply don't forsee it happening for children. Given we've moved away from Reich's orgone work, i don't see us suddenly flipping course towards it.
Conveniently sidestepping the hypothetical.
Science comes and go. One of the pioneers of sex reassignment surgery, which you seem to be supportive of, Magnus Hirschfeld, apparently referred to a woman as suffering from hysteria, for which one of the recognized treatments was sex.
If Science suddenly flipped, would you accept the treatment for your child?
Nope, because we (as per the discussion about sex work below) treat sex as an exception from most things, and sex with minors even more so.
If I were raised in some hypothetical society with very different norms around sex, would I feel differently? Quite possibly, the culture we are raised within has a huge impact on how we think (see Ancient Greece or Rome vs opinions on homosexuality within Christian cultures) , but since I wasn't I cannot say for sure. But that culture is not this one in any case.
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