site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   29003 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 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.

Indeed. To take an easy case, I have to constantly admonish secular people have to such empathy and magnanimity towards religious people. Many secular people consider religious folk mentally diseased and morally defective. This is not meant to be insulting. I just take ethics seriously. It would be easy for me decide that all religious people are intellectually and morally deranged; a lost cause. They routinely claim certainty about something I know they are not certain. Almost always they were indoctrinated about what to believe, and then not to question it. Case closed, right?

But that's not the whole story. I know that religion does so much good for so many people. I know what spiritual yearning and salvation feels like. Order. Comfort. Community. Humility that this world is much bigger than we can even begin to understand. To realize that the purpose life - no matter who is controlling it - is to love whoever is around to be loved. To realize that one friend is all one needs in order to be well supplied with friendship. Imaginary friends should count, too.

So yeah, I think being religious means something is mentally wrong with you. But don't let what I have written tell on me. I - the author of this post - actually, sincerely, earnestly, unsarcastically and unironically, have empathy for religious people.

But this isn't about religion.

This is about empathy. Not pity. Not sympathy. And certainly not about condoning actions one finds immoral. Empathy isn't best derived from an analogous personal experience. Thoughts can overcome emotion. As a straight guy, I too find depictions of men blowing and butt fucking one another to be inherently gross. According to John Haidt, this is fairly normal as when some straight men are show such images, areas in brain related to disgust become active. However, I have the analogous feelings of love and lust to fall back on. When a gay person says "I want that too" my emotions are easily overcome. When it comes to trans related issues I'm more at a loss. I have hated myself in one way or another, but never in a way that altering my outward appearance would be useful. I'm quite open to experience, so when a trans person tells me they want to be trans on their own time, I have to felt sense or moral or ethical implication, and am willing to make reasonable accommodations in kind. However, when trans activists make a religion out of woke, I can delineate what and is or is not a reasonable accommodation in kind. Importantly, I can still have empathy for the terminally woke. It probably is genuinely distressing to think the Cass Report is bigoted pseudoscience, or that there is some sort of trans genocide, as is often hysterically claimed. Empathy has a role to play in destroying bad ideas.

For what it's worth, from the perspective of someone who's very religious, the worst and most frustrating attitude I've ever run into from non-religious people is the idea that because religion is "a choice" it must always come second to other identities. A gay person (supposedly) can't choose not to be gay, but a Christian can choose not to be Christian, or can choose not to be an anti-gay Christian, so gay identity comes first.

But that's not how any serious follower of any religion I've ever spoken to experiences their religion, and it's certainly not how I experience it. I'm not just choosing this or that on the basis of arbitrary preference, such that I could change my mind. Faith is not like picking which car to drive. I'm practicing a particular religion because it's actually true. Telling me "well, you could just choose not to be Christian" feels like, ironically, someone telling a scientist, "well, you could just choose not to be Darwinist, look, Lysenkoism is a perfectly good choice, why not believe that?"

The atheist who thinks that I'm wrong and my beliefs are false is, to my mind at least, better and more tolerable than the atheist who thinks that my beliefs are mere affectation or aesthetic preference. No, I can't just believe something else, because that would be switching from something true to something false. If you want me to change my beliefs, you have to actually convince me that my beliefs are false. There is no shortcut.

And for what it's worth from an Atheist, I've only ever seen this attitude get applied towards Christians, not towards the religious in general. Opposing e.g. Islamophobia has the baked-in assumption that Muslims can't simply choose to not be Muslim to avoid discrimination. But when it comes to discriminating against 'fundies' there's no such consideration.

I've seen the point made that this could also be due simply to Islamists being more than willing to kill for insults to their faith, like the Charlie Hebdo incident. Christians, especially today, have a more "turn the other cheek" attitude, and aren't so willing even to criticize blasphemy, much less to kill for it.

If true, that's rather scary: it suggests that the only way to ensure tolerance of a belief system is to be uncompromising and violent in defense of it, because any weakness will be exploited even by people who consider themselves paragons of 'tolerance.'

I realize that sounds like a "Just Asking Questions" moment where I'm suggesting the opposite to justify something terrible, but I have a genuine fear that this is true and would consider it horrifying if it were. I would much rather we all get along, and I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Yes, with Islam specifically I think the implied belief is that 'Muslim' is basically an ethnicity or a race. This is silly, especially because Islam is very resolutely and explicitly non-racial and non-ethnic, but no one accused Western political discourse of making sense.

I mean, scientologists are mostly white, and everyone thinks they're stupid and delusional.

As is so often the case, it comes down to the outgroup/fargroup distinction. For leftist in America, Muslims (even the ones in the country) are the fargroup. They just don't care about them that much. But Christians (especially the conservative, fundamentalist strain of Christian) are the outgroup. They hate those people, and so they target all their ire at them.

If Muslims were making laws aimed at me, I'd care more about what they do.

Most people don't care about others' personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect people who don't believe the same things.

Muslims are definitely not fargroup in the UK yet this pattern still holds.

This is fascinating. I would have remained blind to it otherwise, so thanks. I wonder how many other religious people feel this way. I have learned to put conscious effort into empathizing with people taking their religion as literally true. It explains so much, and has changed me for the better. However, I never considered that religious beliefs themselves would be, seem, feel, etc. like they were not a conscious choice.

For example, I prefer exclusively women over men when it comes to having sex. No argument exists which could convince me to sexually prefer men (any more than there is a convincing argument that I prefer eating poo over ice-cream). I'm just not wired to prefer those things. However, I could be convinced to become a Christian or Muslim or Flat Earther or 9/11 truther, or whatever. My non-theism remains a choice. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something or this is all semantics, hinging on free will or something.

Are deeply held religious beliefs experienced the same way as be deeply held beliefs like murdering random people is wrong, or the Sun is driven by fusion, or the govt shouldn't tax unrealized gains, or the US is a great country, etc. How are religious beliefs experienced differently?

I find it interesting that you put flat earth in a different category than a fusion-powered sun.

Anyway, I think there are clearly at least some voluntary components to religions, which are plainly choices. Religious people do also talk about having struggling with doubts.

But yeah, Christians do literally think that God died and was resurrected 2000 years ago. Doesn't mean that that's always going to be fully internalized, of course, but we do think that. If you asked a Christian "Was there someone 2000 years ago named Jesus, who was crucified?" "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" "Was Jesus God?" I think you'll generally get some pretty sincere yeses, especially if you ask the questions in that order.

I don't want to get too deeply into my own experiences, but I doubt that I'm completely unique, and in cases like mine, it doesn't feel like a choice, but rather like a grudging admission of something that I could no longer deny. It usually doesn't feel like deciding to believe in God, but often the opposite, as if one tried to decide not to believe in God, but after long trial and effort it proved impossible.

Perhaps the most famous example of a Christian like this would be C. S. Lewis. From Surprised by Joy, ch. 14:

People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation [the reality of God]. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about "man's search for God." To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat. The best image of my predicament is the meeting of Mime and Wotan in the first act of Siegfried; hier brauch' ich nicht Spärer noch Späher, Einsam will ich.... (I've no use for spies and snoopers. I would be private....)

Remember, I had always wanted, above all things, not to be "interfered with." I had wanted (mad wish) "to call my soul my own." I had been far more anxious to avoid suffering than to achieve delight. I had always aimed at limited liabilities. The supernatural itself had been to me, first, an illicit dram, and then, as by a drunkard's reaction, nauseous. Even my recent attempt to live my philosophy had secretly (I now knew) been hedged round by all sorts of reservations. I had pretty well known that my ideal of virtue would never be allowed to lead me into anything intolerably painful; I would be "reasonable." But now what had been an ideal became a command; and what might not be expected of one? Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself. But would He also be "reasonable" in that other, more comfortable, sense? Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered me. Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark, were demanded. The reality with which no treaty can be made was upon me. The demand was not even "All or nothing." I think that stage had been passed, on the bus top when I unbuckled my armor and the snowman started to melt. Now, the demand was simply "All."

You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words compelle intrare, compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.

How are religious beliefs experienced differently?

A chaplain I knew once credited it as to experience the sublime in a way that changes your perspective afterwards on the world.

'Sublime' is a word that's often used as just another synonym for quality in art, but it can mean more than just 'pretty.' Something sublime is something that strikes one with awe- not simply being impressed, but the much more intense feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear and wonder. Once you experience it, you are forever changed, because while your feeling on the thing may change afterwards, the reverence / respect / fear / wonder changes how you see the relation of things.

This is not, to be clear, a 'solely' religious experience. It's a somewhat common attestation of astronauts who go into space and look down on the earth- seeing how small their home countries are puts the their formerly massive worlds into a new perspective. Astronauts, despite coming from often committed career professional paths of government cultures, often have a reputation for being more post-nationalist/more internationalist, not because they don't care about their countries but because their paradigm is shifted by the scale perception and how they view their homelands. That sense of being taken out of your previous perception paradigm and thrust into another has other analogs as well, often when dealing with items of scale- some people get put into awe by nature, or by mega-engineering, or by diving deep into conceptually massive items.

The point here isn't 'what' causes your perception shift, but rather that you have one, and what that means going forward. Just as an astronaut is never going to look at earth the same way again even when they return, or an environmentalist struck by the grandeur of nature will never be as impressed by industrial output, the very way people connect the world together has changed in a way that is not 'merely' a choice.

You do not choose to undergo the sublime experience (you can go look at something other people say is sublime and feel nothing), but likewise when you do experience the sublime you do not 'choose' to let it change you- instead, you are the one changed, because that is part of what strikes the reverence / respect / fear. And after that sort of experience, well... you can try to argue with a converted environmentalist that industrialization is good, and they might be swayed by specific arguments that industrialization may be a net positive for society despite it's harm to nature, but the underlying paradigms of how they put the world together has changed. You can't really argue people out of that any more than you can argue them out of their own visual perception.

Religion is a broad set of dynamics and relations, but the sublime religious experience is broad enough / shared enough that people who have experienced it can find enough of each other to validate and further the beliefs, in a similar sense that you and I both know what 'love' is as an experience despite not knowing eachother or eachother's experiences. For those touched by the sublime, something similar exists, and through it the sense of solidarity that the sublime experience, rather than being purely personal, is a shared sense of something else- and that something else is God, with all the fear / wonder / awe / reverence that implies.

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