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 -
My understanding is that, although the people's of Europe were divided by religion, they were still WEIRD in the modern sense. They were fighting for their own universalist religions, not for their clans. They were wars of ideas, rather than of peoples.
No true Scotsman?
I think you’d have to draw a really strange category to exclude all the deeply ethnic conflicts. There was plenty of Slav- or Jew- or Walloon- or Catalonian-hating going on.
More options
Context Copy link
Non-WEIRD populations fall hard for universalist religions- Islam and Communism are historically recent examples- all the time. The kind of western European identity in which the liberal urheimat can be called homogenous did exist in the high middle ages, with the identity of 'Latins'- but that idea disappeared into sectarian violence in the sixteenth century. The English king's marriage to a French Catholic during the beginning of the enlightenment was hugely controversial and hated by the people to the point of subsequently being made illegal and France withdrew the edict of toleration in the same period. These countries were ground zero for liberalism.
'Religious tolerance among Christians' is itself a liberal idea, although perhaps rooted in the protestant tendency to see themselves as on the same team despite their gigantic theological differences. Perhaps that's why you don't see serious intellectual reactionism coming without Catholic roots; the protestant classical conservatives who aligned against Napoleon put no effort into ideology and even the moderate English version of classical conservatism tends to be aligned with high church Anglicanism when it isn't outright Catholic.
That’s seriously stretching the definition of universalist. Both of those ideologies/religions draw pretty sharp distinctions between groups of people, with fairly extreme hostility
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The most important intra-European religious conflicts in my lifetime have been in former Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland. In both cases religion was very obviously a proxy for tribal identity, not a religious thing. Unfortunately this doesn't answer the question, because they both happened in transHajnal Europe.
It is, of course, the whole point that religious conflict in cisHajnal Europe is unheard of, except in so far as it involves immigrants from transHajnal places.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link