site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26564 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 3, 2024

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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There’s no way the Pope would excommunicate arguably the world’s most powerful Catholic (other than or perhaps even including himself) even if he had done something to warrant it.

This is a recent pussification of the Church. The last Head of State to be excommunicated was Tito in 1946 (for ordering the show trial of a Catholic bishop) and the previous one was King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy in 1870 for invading Rome.

The last time "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" was excommunicated was Napoleon in 1809 (also for invading Italy).

In the Middle Ages royal excommunications were commonplace, but if the criterion of "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" is used then we have Holy Roman Emperors Otto IV in 1210 (invading Italy again), Frederick II (three times: for promising to go on Crusade and not doing so, for invading Italy, and for obstructing the Pope's attempt to lead Christian Europe's response to the Mongols), and Henry IV and Henry V (multiple times over the Investiture Controversy - in effect for claiming the authority to appoint bishops in the Holy Roman Empire in place of the Pope).

So basically what you're saying is that as long as Biden doesn't invade Italy or try to appoint bishops, he's going to be fine.

Were Donald Trump Catholic, I suspect he would be more likely to be excommunicated for promising to launch a crusade and not doing so. My understanding of the precedents is that "Congress wouldn't support it" is not an excuse and "You should have taken by calls for war against the infidel seriously but not literally" certainly isn't.

The Papacy couldn't even crush SSPX in 1988.

swole_doge_vs_cheems.jpg

But they did excommunicate the SSPX leadership after the Econe consecrations - schismatic consecrations are still one of the reliable ways of getting excommunicated - or technically given the law around latae sententiae, of excommunicating yourself in a way the Vatican will wish to publicise.

You will notice that most of the historical exommunications I mentioned didn't succeed in crushing anyone - the practice of unrepentant excommunicants thumbing their nose at the Papacy is as old as the practice of excommunicating people.

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