site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28526 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some, yes. But you have to identify them from the careerists who will mirror the current pope's opinions (cf. president choosing a judge to nominate). This was a problem the previous popes faced with their appointments.

And with the dire shortage of priests, kicking anyone out is something a bishop has to be very careful about. You can't just kick out everyone who prays the rosary, because then you'd have to shut down almost every parish in the diocese. Closing or merging parishes massively upsets people.

For example, many bishops have slow-walked suppressing the TLM, not because they're fans of it, but because they don't want to piss off even a small number of people in their diocese. Closing even a single parish is a much bigger headache.

You can't just kick out everyone who prays the rosary, because then you'd have to shut down almost every parish in the diocese.

And why is that a problem?

Closing or merging parishes massively upsets people.

So what? Let them be upset. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. They can suck it up, or they can choose to leave the One True Church, and thereby condemn themselves to eternal hellfire.

For several reasons. Bishops are not progressive robots dealing with constant complaints is not enjoyable. All the people complaining won't be sending in any checks. And finally what makes you think progressive's believe in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or even hell for that matter.

Bishops have been importing priests from Africa/India/Etc. because of the shortage for a while now and those guys are not progressives. Bishops are already revealed they prefer keeping the parishes open over progressive ideological purity.

Bishops have been importing priests from Africa/India/Etc. because of the shortage for a while now and those guys are not progressives.

They're not doctrinaire conservatives, either. The very conservative priests in the USA are European-Americans, very often strongly ethnic European-Americans.

Is this way some of the Trads are into the Byzantine rite - which is one half step away from just going Greek/Russian/Ukrainian Orthodox or, at the least, one of the fully in communion Eastern Catholic churches.

This kind of goes to show it isn't about following any real strictures that will make the difference between salvation and damnation. It fits in with my view of even the "serious adherents" not taking any of it too seriously. I'm sure the faithful can spend a hundred thousand words splitting hairs etc to justify it all, but from the outside it just looks like what it is.

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