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 have noticed this pattern as well and I'm going to apply it to two further areas to explain social phenomena of interest.
Religion. In the past Christianity was one of these "broadly necessary" $[skill]s. To get on in life, form social connections, get jobs and generally be regarded as a trustworthy, upstanding member of society it was necessary to be seen at church every week and be vaguely conversant in Christian concepts, terminology and so forth. I think of it kind of like a general education requirement at University, everybody has to take a math class to graduate. As a result a number of "math classes for humanities majors" arise to fulfill demand from students that hate math but are obligated to take math courses, things like "Mathematics of Shakespearean Sonnets" that sort of thing. If the university were to drop the requirement a lot of the attendance at these classes would crater overnight.
I see a similar phenomenon with religion. In essence our society dropped the "general education requirement" of Christianity, and we discovered that many Christian denominations more or less only existed to fulfill the requirement for people that really were not religion enthusiasts and would drop out given the choice. To bring it back to your point above, now the only people attending church (at least those below a certain age) are those that are essentially the Christianity hobbyists or enthusiasts who do it for the sheer love of the thing and are therefore attracted to more 'intense' denominations like Pentecostalism while the more moderate and boring Protestant denominations like Anglicans die off. We have the phenomenon you described here:
Another example of the phenomenon I've noticed would be what I've observed with General Trivia Knowledge. Every other week I play trivia games with my coworkers who are all decently well educated people, but many of them 5 years younger than me or so. I'm continuously been surprised by how little general knowledge they have despite being quite intelligent. I mean general trivia knowledge like "What is the Hindenburg Disaster?" "Can you recognize the major European languages when written?" "What was Watergate?" "Who wrote the Canterbury Tales?" "Who said the line 'Dr. Livingston I presume?' and why?", things of that nature.
Of course there are many reasons for this, but I've come to attribute a lot of this to youtube and the internet giving people too much control over what they watch. I feel like I learned a lot of the random trivia I know I learned when flipping through random TV channels as a kid and watching something on PBS or the History Channel or an old movie (often with a historical subject like Lawrence of Arabia or Zulu) on TCM with my dad. Now people have much more freedom to become enthusiasts on any subject they choose. If they want to watch League of Legends content, there is enough of that on YT/Twitch/etc to keep them occupied for their entire lives without ever needing to branch out from sheer boredom and lack of alternatives.
My coworkers are intelligent but their knowledge is silo'd and inaccessible, all spent on some random hobby that I will never talk to them about while the cultural common ground of references, trivia and anecdotes has been completely destroyed and it honestly makes them seem completely retarded when we are doing trivia.
I especially like your Christianity-as-skill idea, because it fits but I haven't thought of it that way before.
Recently, I [an atheist who grew up Eastern Orthodox] came to the conclusion that, if ever shit hit the fan in my life and my personal social network wasn't up for the task, I would head to Church--of whichever denomination is closest to Eastern Orthodox and physically proximal to me. Church first, then check what safety net the government has to offer. Because the Church tends to respond faster to any crucial need and doesn't require paperwork.
(US governments offer a pretty good safety net to anyone who is willing and capable of (a) accurately filling lots of forms, (b) letting go of all of one's earthly possessions, and (c) waiting up to several years if necessary.)
My atheism in particular, and my non-belonging-to-a-church in general, are luxuries indicative of a life lacking in severe shocks. I recognize this. How fortunate for me, then, that so many Christian denominations share the idea of repentance and return-of-the-prodigal.
This is tangential. But I'm Eastern Orthodox, my husband is open to it, and we have not managed to get past the standing quietly for two hours part of being to church with young children. I want the children to have godparents! I keep aspiring to take them. St Nicholas day was last weekend! But I still haven't managed to make it work. I suppose I should embrace church-as family-social-project, vs church as opportunity to sing and pray, as I experienced it before (I was the Christian hobbiest type before, going to vespers and akathists and studies and everything).
I would still go to my church acquaintances first if I needed help, though. Despite failing to attend, they still found me a place to live, free furniture, and let me borrow a car for a week.
Huh, the Sunday service is only two hours now! I remember it being three. (I love being old enough to say "back in my day...")
Fortunately church people are very understanding of kid's limitations. I remember the parents taking their toddlers outside (and, discreetly, their tweens as well) once their progeny started fidgeting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone on said safety net, can confirm.
Perhaps, but you are also "fortunate" here in having a church to "return" to. Imagine growing up irreligious, with parents who don't attend a church of any kind. Would "church first, then government safety net" still be your ordering in seeking help?
If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government, then indeed I wouldn't have that mental ordering. Then again, I am probably missing ideas about other resources that are more responsive than the government, because I don't have prior experience in them.
It would be more responsive for you, as someone returning to a childhood faith. But if you were an atheist who'd grown up atheist, would it still be "more responsive"?
Oh I see. Yes, I think so. Many of the congregations around where I live are very welcoming of newcomers, and seem even more so with people who were never religious. The devout protestants I know seem especially susceptible to simple redemption narratives ("I grew up an atheist, but now..."), and would have fewer questions for someone like that who wants to join their congregation. With someone like me, they'd want to know how I came to grok that the denomination of my youth isn't the right Christian faith while theirs is.
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