site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28486 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At the rate things are going, in 5 to 10 years tops.

Of course people who are interested in history have known that everyone was acting insane in WW2 for a while, but the days of the children story of uncomplicated good vs bad that is the founding myth of the boomer religion are numbered.

Turns out you can't just insist on your beliefs if you want to pass them on, you also have to make them useful to future generations.

Much as I despise Hitlerism, it was bound to be viewed as an unremarkable despotism eventually. It has no unique features except for being the central role of this particular story. Genocides and industrial kill counts are a dishearteningly common occurance.

When Life of Brian, the Monty Python comedy, was released some were offended by the last joke that has the crucified sing "always look on the bright side of life", and one journalist asked whether we'd find it all so funny if it weren't crosses but gas chambers, whether the amount of time that has passed influences us so much. I think the answer is yes. Time dulls the edges of all things. Anything that has once been a life and death matter eventually will end up in the category of that which is so inoffensive it is an acceptable topic of light comedy.

When Life of Brian, the Monty Python comedy, was released some were offended by the last joke that has the crucified sing "always look on the bright side of life", and one journalist asked whether we'd find it all so funny if it weren't crosses but gas chambers, whether the amount of time that has passed influences us so much.

Historically, depiction of the cross is the only artistic Christian universal -- what aniconists of both the Byzantine crisis and the Protestant Reformation had in common was a belief that the cross (and the sacrament) is the only acceptable religious imagery, which is why their churches look like this.

But I've heard historians argue that in early Christian times, when crucifixion was still an active form of punishment in the Roman empire and one to which an insistent Christian might be subjected, there was extreme reluctance to depict it. They assert that this is why the earliest Christian art prefers motifs like the good shepherd, loaves and fishes, St. Mary and the Christchild, etc.

When Christianity became legally protected, and crucifixion faded into the past as a form of torture, this school of historians argues that Christians became more willing to depict the cross as an explicit image of the death of Christ.

There's also a recent Christian sect -- let's call it what it is, it's a cult -- called the Iglesia ni Cristo, which outright rejects the depiction of the cross, and makes fun of mainstream Christians for depicting it with the same sorts of dumb gotchas that edgy 14-year-old atheists use. "If Jesus died in the electric chair, would you wear necklaces with electric chairs?" To which I respond, yes.

I've heard that the LDS church is also reluctant to depict the cross, but when you ask Mormons their reasoning, it's something along the lines of "we don't depict the cross because Jesus isn't dead any more," which is just a folk theology explanation plucked from evangelical Protestantism (like a lot of things in Mormonism), as it's the same argument that lay Protestants invoke against depictions of the cross-with-corpus, i.e. the crucifix.

So, yeah, historical horrors do seem to fade with intensity over time, as living memory of the reality is lost and they become more like distant symbols.

But it's worth noting that the cross maintained significant symbolic importance for Christians (we would not remember it if it did not!), just as the holocaust maintains significant symbolic importance for Jews. The OP contains a link to a Jewish man Singalularly singularly distraught over any attempt to mock or trivialize the holocaust, which rather reminds me of my own youthful offense at artistic depictions that seem to mock or trivialize the cross.

I'm sure Jewish people will remember the Holocaust long after everyone else has forgotten it. But remembering historical events is kind of their thing, a tendency which they imparted to Christians.

(Intriguingly, there's an overlap of concepts as "holocaust" is sacrificial terminology, and Christianity of course interprets the crucifixion of Jesus as singularly sacrificial -- and D-R literally has "holocausts" as a translation for "burnt offerings" in that passage. I was hoping to make a grand point about the significance of historical events in theological identity, but of course the preferred Hebrew term for the holocaust is "Shoah," which doesn't have anything to do with ritual sacrifice.)

There's also a recent Christian sect -- let's call it what it is, it's a cult -- called the Iglesia ni Cristo, which outright rejects the depiction of the cross

There's an even newer one out of Mexico, La Luz del Mundo, with a similar policy of rejection.

I'm aware of them because of the highly visible (closed) church they built in my neighborhood.

Very interesting comment, thank you.

Just a nit, but many Protestants were not always happy to endorse even a plain cross, let alone a crucifix. An article from 1912 illustrates the point:

On the first Sabbath of April we worshiped in a conservative Presbyterian church. The music was glorious, and the sermon was strong and spiritual. But the various parts of the service and the total effect revealed the growing tendency—we had almost said the absolute surrender—of the modern Protestant churches to the ritualistic principle. It was not the Sabbath, the Lord’s Day, that was honored; it was Easter that was celebrated. The cross, which was sternly banished from the churches of the Reformation, occupied a central place on the pulpit, wrought in flowers, it is true, and not in metal or marble; nevertheless, there it was, a religious symbol in a Christian church. . . . One cannot but wonder where it will all end. We rub our eyes and ask whether our spiritual ancestors were mistaken; whether our catechisms were written in prejudice; whether the drift will carry all before it and give to ritualism the wide-spread and complete victory which it has long desired and planned. . . .

the same argument that lay Protestants invoke against depictions of the cross-with-corpus, i.e. the crucifix.

As an aside, I have always felt that this entire point of contention between Catholic and Protestant Christians is a huge missing of the point on both sides. At least, the people waging the Christian culture war miss the point - most Christians I've known are content to live and let live. Both the crucifix and the empty cross are good symbols for different reasons. The former reminds us of Jesus' suffering, the latter reminds us that he is alive even after all that. You need both of those things in Christianity! I think there's nothing wrong with a particular sect deciding that they want to emphasize one or the other, as they are both equally worthy of symbols.

most Christians I've known are content to live and let live

I have no problem with live and let live, but they should keep their heresies outside of Catholic church. Catholics acknowledge three pillars of their faith: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium as opposed to protestant sola scriptura. Catholics accept the authority of the church, this free-for-all shit that is happening in constantly fracturing protestant churches so they can just vibe with Jesus on personal level does not fly.

The theological differences run quite deep. The Catholic Church requires that there be a cross-with-corpus on or near the altar in full view of the congregation for the celebration of mass. This is as a reminder that the sacrifice of the mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross, and that the bread and the wine presented on the altar are the real and substantial body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

The protestant view is to deny the physical presence of Christ in the church, and so the crucifix is disfavored over a symbolic cross.

I think it has more to do with a general tendency towards aniconism in general, rather than a rejection of the substantial presence. Though there still remains a gap where theoretically someone could say the Eucharist should be adored but we shouldn't have icons -- it's just that it's never happened, depending on how you understand the sacramentology of the Byzantine iconoclasts. nvm, my amateur opinion is this was probably exactly what the Byzantine iconoclasts thought.

Lutherans are happy to display images -- and the trad Lutherans are very insistent that crucifixes are a traditional Lutheran custom. They don't assent to Nicea II however, and hold a position (condemned by the council and rejected by the Pope) suspiciously similar to that of no less than Charlemagne that images should be displayed as reminders and teaching aids, but never venerated.

I suspect this view was rocking around in western Europe for a long time, and it was only the Calvinists' iconoclasm that forced the Latin Rite to enforce orthodoxy on that point. Eastern Europe has the Triumph of Orthodoxy, Western Europe has the Baroque period. And both times the attitude was something like, "you don't like us venerating images? Fine, we're going to venerate them even harder."

You find a mixture of crosses and crucifixes in Lutheran churches in the United States, though in my experience it leans towards bare crosses, presumably under Calvinist and credobaptist influence. Though almost always these crosses in Lutheran churches are paired with images and statues of Jesus prominently displayed.

Further, Latin Rite Catholics are perfectly happy coexisting in communion with various rites where the tradition is not generally to display the corpus in a central location, or even to have a prominent cross at all. The difference is those rites* don't object to depictions of the crucifix and use them in other contexts.

Just to say that I believe it's more complicated than you're saying. The mass would still be the mass even if there were a bare cross, though I agree it's an important aid to religious devotion and suits the Latin rite well.

*assuming they find 3d religious artwork acceptable at all

I think there’s also an iconoclastic aspect to it. Protestants are uncomfortable with using statues of Jesus and saints in a religious ceremonial role. A cross without a corpus is a symbol. A cross with a corpus veers dangerously close to being an idol.

unremarkable despotism

It's plenty remarkable for a lot of reasons. First, the soap-opera drama of the Nazi rise is just incredible. If it weren't so horrifying, you could make a dozen comic soap operas out of it. Second, the remarkable run of wild success that Hitler's early-career gambles met with is fascinating. There were generals locking themselves in their offices with nervous breakdowns over the Anschluss, the handling of the Sudenten crisis, the invasion of the rump Czechoslovak state, Fall Weiss, and Fall Gelb...and somehow each one worked out fantastically in Hitler's favor. Even the amazing success of the Wehrmacht at the beginning of Barbarossa was down to ridiculously good timing (catching the Soviets forward-deployed for an invasion to the West...but not yet on a war footing) and a shocking case of the normally-wily Stalin suddenly grabbing onto the idiot-ball of world-history with both hands. Third, the speed at which things broke down for the Nazis is just as vertiginous, and makes an equally-interesting story. And of course fourth, the sheer industrial scale of the killing achieved through bureaucracy is itself a modern marvel, and a sobering reminder to western, advanced, industrialized nations that we are not exempt from the blood-lust we might otherwise be tempted to put down to the savagery of less-enlightened souls (the Khmer Rouge, the Rwandan Hutu, the Young Turks, etc.)

the soap-opera of the rise

remarkable run of wild success

the normally-wily enemy suddently grabbing onto the idiot-ball

Napoleon has all of these. It's arguable which one tops the other on either point but they are compared often for a reason.

The scale of the industrical killing is also very comparable to Stalin's.

Napoleon has all of these. It's arguable which one tops the other on either point but they are compared often for a reason.

Napoleon is one of the most noteworthy figures in history.

The scale of the industrial killing is also very comparable to Stalin's.

Yes, the forced resettlement of millions and the complete subjugation and remaking of the USSR under Stalin is also one of the most notable and interesting (though macabre and sinister) phases in modern history.

Hitler was not Franco, or Mussolini, or Vargas, or any of the other tin-pot dictators of the period. He was, no matter how you slice it, one of the Great Horrors. Perhaps, with the passage of enough centuries, he, Stalin, and Mao will be remembered like we remember Tamerlane or Ghengis Khan, the bloodiness of their deeds overshadowed by the alien, bygone nature of their world. But they will be remembered as Great Horrors all the same.

And when writers and producers deign to visit the era, we end up with some quality fiction!

Don't remind me of Ridley Scott's decline, please. I rewatched Blade Runner recently and it seems impossible that the same man made that dreadful movie that's all about Joséphine.

At the rate things are going, in 5 to 10 years tops.

Which is conveniently around when the last living memories of the war will be completely gone. At that point I've observed that historians are wont to jump in with revisionist takes. Not that they're always wrong: sometimes the living histories are corrupted by a sense of honor and flawed memories. But it often leads to "maybe the baddies weren't completely bad" takes.

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