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 know at least one of them is serious about it because I explicitly asked. The others are generally even more right wing than her. I've had to self censor quite a bit lately.
(I dont mean to argue your experience in person, my experience with this argument was entirely schizo twitter) Wait, do people still talk about this, or has there been some "update" recently?
And, I didnt think of it originally, but you calling it racist is a great example of how it works rethorically. Most onlookers arent gonna know what you mean, it just looks like you call everything racist. And if you do go on to explain... this stereotype of black women being less feminine, I had not heard about before outside this very topic. The version about implictly biased western beauty standards is more common, but also gets into the "nutty demands" territory. Whichever way you roll it, you lose points with those not already in your camp, and it wasnt really necessary to bring it up, either - yet here we go.
It’s been spoken about again more because of popular conservative grifter Candace Owens’ video series alleging that Brigitte Macron is mtf.
this is one of those things that surely can't be true because it requires a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth
Notably, Brigitte macron would have had to disguise himself as a woman decades ago and also be a homosexual groomer. Even if trans, gay, predatory teacher(and even if you don’t think teenaged boys having sex with adults is inherently predatory- let’s face it, most people don’t- I think most people would agree that it is when that adult is his teacher) are overlapping groups, that’s still a series of coincidences. Candace Owens simply went off the tradcath deep end; I expect video series about how Antarctica is actually covered in forests, smoking is good for you, etc in the near term future.
Except, as you yourself have done a good job pointing out, it was the very, very, very online "tradcath" deep end.
I've listened to about half of the SSPX Crisis in the Church Podcast. These are IRL TradCaths who go off the deep end in relation to all sorts of actual theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical topics. But it doesn't make for good television. "The Vatican forced Archbishop Lefevbre's hand! He had to do the Econe consecrations!" is a snooze fest from the jump.
Online Tradcaths, being very online and aware of the mechanics of social media, thus decided to release the mixtape of; Flat Earth (Remix), All Them Hoes is Dudes, and (Living in a) Pedophiles Paradise.
I never followed much of Candance Owens' career. A limited background being my caveat, it appears to me she lost some esteem when she went out on her own and has dealt with that poorly.
There are IRL not-online tradcaths who believe and happily explain all sorts of schizo theories about Jews/healthcare/gender/history and geography/etc. It's not a majority but they do exist- those old timers sitting in a corner drinking coffee for hours after mass will probably start with some tamer stuff about the 2020 election, moving into Pearl Harbor truth before going off about the Jews controlling big pharma to cause homosexuality and ending with Antarctica being forested and British control of the Falklands exists to prevent the Argentine military from making this discovery and blowing the lid off of it. Much much less race baiting than online twitterati tradcaths but pretty schizo, even if your median IRL rad-trad conspiracy theory is a snoozefest to everyone except their co-religionists. I'm not paying too too much attention to Candace Owens but she's definitely an active and involved rad trad who would be notable within the community even if she wasn't already a celebrity- she's definitely at least heard the particular actual-schizo cocktail crazy rad trads get into.
As an aside, the SSPX keeps its priests- and important laypeople- on a much shorter leash than the FSSP, and while they have other problems 'letting unrelated schizophrenia spread unchecked' is not one. You want to find rad trads who are into esoteric paranoid schizophrenia in totally unrelated ways, you talk to elderly people at larger FSSP parishes. The society will only tolerate unrelated conspiracy theories if they further the hardline social conservatism- eg women in pants is a masonic plot, the pill causes homosexuality in nearby males, etc.
Thanks for this.
The FSSP and SSPX split has so many weird interconnections. I'm still parsing them. As you say, the FSSP is in full communion with Rome, yet has a much broader schizo tendency. The SSPX seems to have rebuffed Benedict XVI's sincere invitation to get back into communion. Then, when Pope Francis tried again - and SSPX rebuffed the offer again - Cardinal Burke, of all people, appears to have totally dismissed the SSPX. But it also appears to me that the SSPX has really well informed their priests in terms of doctrine. The SSPX podcast, regardless of where you come down on the issues presented, is full of priests who could be teaching graudate level theology, philosophy, and metaphyiscs. When I imagine their depth of catechesis and priestly formation versus a guitar-and-piano NO priest, I have to chuckle.
I'm looking for a reliable Latin Mass and want to avoid even accidental schism. At this point, I'm getting interest in the ICKSP if for no other reason than, as the kids say, their "drip" is "on point."
It was once explained to me as ‘SSPX priests are from here to here(gestures right to left with hands), FSSP priests are from here to here(gestures more broadly)’. And this is basically true- SSPX priests are pretty reliably priests who would be hardliners but not out of bounds in the FSSP. As a general rule, the two get along well behind closed doors and the fraternity tends to be much more into ‘high liturgy’, as they’re both lefebvrists and fr Berg took, disproportionately, more high liturgy oriented seminarians in the split.
As an aside, ‘rebuffed pope Francis’ is not the greatest description, because pope Francis didn’t really make an offer. There’s a de facto temporary deal in place in which the SSPX has jurisdiction and no universal penalties(although they might have some local issues depending on the bishop), and in theory negotiations on a permanent one are… well, stalled out might be a generous term, but at least theoretically there’s supposed to be a permanent situation constructed in the future. According to bishop Schneider, Benedict’s offer was expected to be a nonstarter and only given to open negotiations, and progress was ongoing even during the rejection. Reading between the lines a bit the offer was probably intended to shape certain internal political factors in the society(=sidelining Williamson), and if so it certainly worked.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link