When I think of counter culture, I think more about the cultural artifacts then some shared political believes. Sure the scene might have some shared politics, but that is a by-product, and is not necessary. I mean, see the punks and their wide range of politics.

As an example, other people have mentioned furries. They do have a pretty easily distinguishable aesthetics which you’ll spot immediately when you look at their art or their fashion. They might all share a pro LGBTQI+ agenda, but that is as far as their politics will agree, and besides most people have the same political view about LGBTQI+ anyway.

> most people have the same political view about LGBTQI+ anyway

Even in the anglosphere this isn't true. Those with differing views mostly keep silent. But get them in private or anonymously (e.g. a fellow train passenger) and a wide variety of views emerge.

> But get them in private or anonymously (e.g. a fellow train passenger) and a wide variety of views emerge.

A truly stunning diversity of views and opinions… but pretty much all of them agree with the idea that everyone should be entitled to basic decency. Most of the differences I've observed are attributable to differences in personal experience (e.g. subject-matter knowledge, perception of the consensus of others) and language use, rather than anything that'd get you kicked out of a fur con.

There are people who claim to agree with famous bigots, but when you actually get them talking, they just think the sky is blue (and that others insist it's orange with bright pink spots). I've never talked to anyone who actually agrees with newspaper vitriol surrounding LGBTQIA+ stuff (which I find surprising, considering how many people seem to agree with newspaper nationalist vitriol).

I do mourn a little, that people feel they can't be open about their views. If we talked to each other more, I think we'd find we agree about more than we disagree. (Then again, the things we do openly talk about seem to be highly polarising topics; I know not what causes what.)

> I do mourn a little, that people feel they can't be open about their views. If we talked to each other more, I think we'd find we agree about more than we disagree. (Then again, the things we do openly talk about seem to be highly polarising topics; I know not what causes what.)

I agree, and have often said the same thing. As the old saying goes, people tend to judge others by their actions, and themselves by their intentions. What the vast majority of us really want is happiness and health for ourselves, our families, and our communities. It's easy to have a civil disagreement with somebody when you keep in mind that they really do mean the best, but cynicism has taken over a lot of peoples' mental images of each other.

Or, maybe people just aren't good at scope-limiting their cynicism.

The people physically close to you probably want what's best for themselves and those around them. They're good people. You could probably trust them with your life, provided your emergency is happening right in front of them (and they know what to do about it). The people you talk to online, the people who produce mass media, and the people who write your school textbooks? Never. Drop. Your. Guard. The average person doesn't want to hurt you, but these aren't the average person.

Heck, the mass-media people don't even need to want to hurt you to hurt you, as Michael Crichton once said:

> Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. […] You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

> That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say.

> rather than anything that'd get you kicked out of a fur con

I guess I have a distorted view of what would get you kicked out.

I would have thought that things like saying that "people should be free to use the pronouns they feel apply to the person they are talking about, they shouldnt be forced to lie", "most kids who think they are trans, aren't and will grow out of it" and "transwomen should not be allowed to compete in women's sports or be in women's shelters or prisons, even if they're on hormones" would get you kicked out. And all three are very common, particularly amongst older people but also often with the early 20s crowd.

Let alone views on things like consent (e.g. "being very drunk does not mean sex is rape" or the jaw dropping "if you keep teasing a man you shouldn't be surprised if he decides to take matters into his own hands" said by a women in her 90s) or race ("there could be/probably are intelligence differences between races" are fairly common, as is "be careful around the [insert ethnic group here]s around here, they're dangerous/thieves") or abortion (everything from "life begins at conception" to "infanticide should be legal", in the UK!).

>but pretty much all of them agree with the idea that everyone should be entitled to basic decency.

This is begging the question. Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate, just like disagreement over when life begins and what that means is at the heart of the abortion issue.

Some think "basic decency" means transitioning schoolchildren behind their parents' backs, providing them with hormone blockers and cross-sex hormones without parental knowledge or consent, and removing kids from their homes if the parents object. Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience. The first group holds power in public education, HR departments, academia, and the federal government (at least in the USA), making that second group the counterculture.

> Disagreement over what "basic decency" means is the heart of the LGBTIAP+ debate,

Okay, let's put it another way. Pretty much all of them agreed with me about the entitlement to basic decency. From this, I conclude that my views about basic decency probably aren't all that controversial, after all.

This disagreement exists online, and in the press. I haven't seen it in the real world. If "the heart of the […] debate" is fictional, maybe the debate itself is artificial.

> Some think

Literally who? I will share with you two anecdotes:

• I know some parents whose children, questioning their gender, thought they were trans for a few months. The worried parents advised caution, while doing their best to educate themselves about trans people: the kids (as everyone suspected) turned out not to be trans.¹

• Those parents of trans friends of mine who object to their transition? Also shitty (bordering on abusive) parents in other ways. (When you're holding something else at a much higher priority than your kids, you're probably a shit parent,² and I've yet to see a counterexample.)

So, yeah, I'm somebody who would agree with the letter of your first "basic decency" example. I would likely³ punch somebody who actually supported it in spirit. I mean, seriously. Who the actual [minced oath] is that arrogant, that they know what's right for some kid they've never met, based on a checklist? Arrogant enough to kidnap them from their (presumably loving) family? That's Oliver Twist-style child-rearing morality.

> Others see all that as an attack on parental rights and children's well-being driven by authoritarian pseudoscience.

They're right to.⁴ Except, that "authoritarian pseudoscience" they're fighting against doesn't exist, and nobody in the world (with any power) is actually a proponent of it. The closest thing we've got is overworked and understaffed medical gatekeepers (one clinic for an entire country, in some cases) who make bad calls because they can't make good ones – to the point that only the law really listens to them any more. The solution to that problem is obvious.

> The first group holds power

Please show me an actual example of a member of this group.

---

¹: And yes, professionals usually can tell the difference. Not that a few months of blockers would actually have caused any real issues. (I currently lean towards the "radical autonomy" end of the spectrum, in case you haven't picked up on that; my reasons are many, and probably out of scope of this comment.)

²: Or your kid is in danger of significantly harming somebody else, or something like that. Children are people, after all: some are capable of evil. In these cases, though? Shitty parents.

³: Don't know for sure, though. I've never been in a position to punch one. (I'd like to think I'd try talking, first.)

⁴: In the jurisdictions I'm aware of, there's no such thing as "parental rights". There's children's rights – and in the vast majority of cases, a child's interests are best served by being with their parents. For example, in divorce cases, it's the child's right to have time with their parents, not the parent's right to have time with their child. That distinction can be significant, but only in edge-cases.

Small question: In the name of preventing children from transitioning, there are laws in place in some states to investigate supportive parents for child abuse and separate children from their parents should their parents support their child's transition. How does this correspond with parental autonomy?

There are other laws in place in some states that force that a teacher is not allowed to mention gender identity at all in the classroom, and must report any gender nonconforming behavior to authorities. How does this correspond with teachers having control?

Edit to your additional edit: How do you match that there's no scientific basis for transitioning when the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association both oppose preventing access to transitioning?

You're strawmanning Florida as an example of the status quo, when it's one of a very few states pushing back against the tide.

You're dodging my questions.

Your very comment dodged every major point of my original post, which you continue to evade. I won't be sidetracked into debating the actions of some Governor I don't control in a state I've never visited. It is classic "whatabouting," not relevant to the topic nor the main point.

[Edited: I'm not contributing to this conversation since this is just culture war nonsense to someone who obviously opposes with no interest in mutual understanding, so I'm removing my post here and will cease conversing along this manner.]

> The President of the United States of America

Is not really a real person.¹ But if you think he's an example, he'll suffice for this. Please, state his position, and explain why you disagree with it.

> If you question LGBTQIAP+ or fail to affirm a kids' gender self-identification, you are out of a job.

I mean, yeah. That kind of power over children comes with a responsibility to keep your politics out of school – or, out of your position as authority figure, anyway. (A few, very few, teachers at my school managed the latter – and they only used this talent to rant a little about budget cuts to education, during times where we weren't obliged to listen.)

If a kid thinks she's a prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is not for a teacher to tell her otherwise. If a kid thinks he fancies his best friend, it is not for a teacher to tell him that's wrong. If a kid says they're a fairy princess from Mars? To insist otherwise² is not the role or purpose of a schoolteacher.

> That approach

I didn't describe an approach, there: just a vague philosophy. I think you're reading too much into my words. What do you think the problems with my position are?

---

¹: At least, not while he's acting in his position as head of state. I elaborated on this in a sibling post: real-life people will tell you what they believe, but public figures (especially politicians) often tell you what they think will make you believe something. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34616318

²: A teacher could mention that no life, nor evidence of civilisation, has been found on Mars. Using this as a rebuttal of the child's claim to Martian fairy royalty would be overstepping.

> They might all share a pro LGBTQI+ agenda

They definitely do not. The majority do, but there are plenty of weirdly conservative and almost traditionalist furry sects.

> besides most people have the same political view about LGBTQI+ anyway.

Most people do not. Even among people who openly say the same thing, their internal private views can vary a whole lot. I know plenty of people who are openly pro LGBTQI+, but have more ambivalent feelings about popular narratives that they don't publicize for fear of public shaming and ostricization. They aren't internally against it, but their opinions are more nuanced than they feel people will tolerate.

Cultural artifacts are still only speaking to specific aspects of culture. Punk doesn't speak to all aspects of all cultures for example.

Indeed, but for counter culture, I think the artifacts are kind of important, as it communicates your involvement inside that culture. It is kind of hard to imagine punk without the music, the cloths, the hairstyles, the graffiti, etc. Sure it is also hard to imagine punk without the Anarchy, but if you think of early punks, with their heavy drinking and male dominant behavior, and compare it to modern punk which thoroughly reject these early cultural behaviors, you’ll find that they still share the aesthetics even though their attitude has changed.

Sure, monarchists literally have the monarchy, prison abolitionists have a wide variety of songs/books/icons, etc. I don't understand what you're trying to differentiate.

First of all, I’d like to make a distinction between monarchists and royalists. Monarchists is a political group with certain believes around the structure of the government. Royalists on the other hand is a cultural group that enjoys certain events.

If you look at the cultural artifacts of royalists you’ll find they enjoy and attend events around, for example royal weddings, they gather in forums where they share gossip around, e.g. the Romanovs. It doesn’t matter if they like to keep Putin as president, or if they would like to re-inaugurate the Romanovs as tsars, as political believes are orthogonal to the culture (although I do admit it would be kind of weird to find an anarchist royalist). To that extent I think of royalists more like Eurovision fans.

Likewise if you look at the quintessential prison abolitionist Angela Davis. Now describe her speech, her hairstyle, her public events, etc. You’ll find many prison abolitionists that don’t share any of it, however if you’ll look for people that share these cultural artifacts, you’ll find a bunch of radicals. Radicals is exactly the cultural group which I would ascribe Angela Davis as belonging to.