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.

I am Catholic. It’s not some popular historical excuse. It’s legitimate.

And yes if you publically declare yourself against fundamental Catholic doctrine you are in fact not Catholic. You are ethnic Catholic.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope. If your not doing that then I don’t know what to say. You are just an ethnic Catholic.

I would betray the US for Rome. Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.

That seems more like a rationalization. The papacy has been corrupted by politics any number of times in history. What makes you sure Rome would actually have America's best interests at heart?

Also the Pope himself seems to somewhat disagree with you in that Biden has not been excommunicated, has taken Communion in Rome and is the President. So potentially you are wrong and Rome is right, or you are right and Rome is making decisions based on political considerations (that excommunicating a Catholic US President would be a bad idea) and if that is true then you also can't be sure that other choices are actually made for the right reasons?

Either way your surety upon this subject seems like it is built on shaky ground.

The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope.

What's this called?

Papal Primacy.

There are some complications in theology but basically that.

And yes I think there is a fundamental difference between a sinner out of commune with the Church for their personal behavior and someone who promotes others to sin.

Right, but what's the Oath itself called and when do Catholics make it?

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Look, that’s nice(ne) and all, but it doesn’t actually make you to do anything. One can “believe” all the correct things, but when pressed, choose the wrong action. Such is sin.

The question is what is the oath.

There is a fundamental difference between sin and not believing in the church.

Right. I’m saying that professing the creed, even wholehearted belief in it, is not the same as an oath to the Pope.

Professing a belief in the Catholic Church (that you believe in their teachings) where the Pope has Papal Primacy and the legitimacy of the Church is based on a direct lineage from Peter isn’t the same as an oath to the pope?

Words have meaning.

More comments

As another practicing Catholic, there's no formal oath of allegiance unless you're assuming a clerical office.

I think you were just trying to get @sliders1234 to admit this point, but for other readers who may be unclear -- the allegation that Catholics have divided loyalties stem from the obedience Catholics have to obey the body of church teaching along with any refinements or developments of doctrine provided by the Magisterium (Pope's and bishops). So if I were to become president, I could not properly represent a constituency that favored something that ran counter to church teaching, since my loyalty to God and Church trumps my loyalty to the American state.

I think this has fallen out of favor since the majority of people now probably have an allegiance that trumps their allegiance to America (Evangelical Christianity, Progressivism, Global Socialism, etc).

For other Christians I think/hope they would likewise say loyalty to God and his teachings would have always trumped State. In the past they had less conflict because the State was more explicitly their form of Christianity. And their teachings were not explicitly bound by a rule maker in another country but were more like a conscience or Holy Spirit type thing.

Nicene Creed also gets close to being an oath.

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