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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I disagree. It's quite obvious that Christ viewed himself as the Messiah of the Jewish people and the Samaritans were the outgroup for his Jewish followers. He explicitly compares the Jewish PMCs with the Samaritan and shows that actions are more important than earned or inherent prestige.
Imagine Mirza Ghulam Ahmad telling Muslims that a mufti and a sayyid didn't help a man, but a Christian did. Other Muslims don't consider Ahmadiyya Muslims and maybe the religions will diverge, but Mirza Ghulam Ahmad considered himself one.
The historical evidence goes against the notion that Samaritans were the “out group”. The most consistent enemy of the ancient Jews were the Canaanites and the contemporaneous enemy was the idol-worshipping Pagan nation. The Samaritans were as close you could get to Jewish without being fully Jewish. The Mishna mentions that they could celebrate liturgically together. In speaking to the Pharisees (a sect), Christ has a number criticisms and calls them devil-worshippers. In speaking to the Samaritans, there is no criticism of their theology and just a mild “salvation has come from the Jews”. The idea that the Samaritans were hated and despised by ancient Jews isn’t really evidenced. And God, being God, wouldn’t say something and mean something else. If he wanted to use a despised group, he would do so in the clearest way, and if he wanted to use a neighboring group, he would do so in the clearest way. If the very notion of a neighbor was to be abolished, which is what the outgroup theory implies, he would treat it the way he abolished divorce (“you have heard it said… but truly: …”; or “because of the hardness of your hearts…”). Instead, Christ himself says that we must love our neighbor, and the usage of “neighbor” must mean something, otherwise he would say “everyone”.
You're confusing the enemy with the outgroup. I was using Scott's definition of "proximity plus small differences". Just enough differences to not count as "one of us".
More options
Context Copy link
Why can't it mean to literally love your neighbor? I've seen enough arguments here that one should care about one's physical neighbors before the fargroup. You're not God, you can't meaningfully love everyone, so love your neighbor.
In a word: globalism. “Love your neighbor” was a prescription written ~400BC to an audience whose physical neighbors were co-congregants and cousins in a mostly pastoral lifestyle. The prescription becomes less reasonable in cosmopolitan or exiled contexts. Loving your neighbor is a rule with utility when you’re on the same page with values, authorities, honors and punishments. But what if your neighbor is some random guy? I think if we consider love in its actual biological function — the syncing together of identity and cares between two creatures, the allocation of cognitive and emotional resources to ensure the other’s good, having its origin in filial and procreative and beneficiary roles — we see that love is precious and holy and shouldn’t be metaphorically thrown to swine. Many men and women have been irrevocably hurt by loving the wrong person or thing.
It appears that you are just using Jesus's words as a jumping off point for a claim you want to make rather than seriously engaging with what He meant. He tells the parable in response to a troublemaker asking for a rigorous definition of whom he needs to love as his neighbor, and after telling the story he asks "which of these was a neighbor to him?" - in other words, trying to limit to whom the commandment applied and to whom it didn't was the wrong spirit in which to approach it.
It is funny that you accuse me of not “seriously engaging” in the text, and then you literally make something up about the text. There is no “troublemaker”, that word isn’t there. There is a lawyer who tests his teacher and then wants to present himself as blameless (justify himself) in regards to the command to love his neighbor. Those are the words used. Lawyers look for limit cases; this particular lawyer (student of the law) wanted to be perfect, so he inquires how to be perfect.
“Trying to limit whom the commandment applied” is the question at hand. The teacher highlights the neighborly standard in the conduct of the Samaritan, yes. But what else does he specify? Every word of the parable has meaning. Why specify Jerusalem, Jericho, priest, Levite, and Samaritan? Because this is the neighborhood. These are the Israelites (for Christians: Christians). The Samaritan acted as the neighbor, the priest / levites did not, but the parable exists within the confines of the believing community. “Be a neighbor to everyone” is an outlandish conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link