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 -
Saying that the rules are divine commands and then trying to hack them so that they are effectively rendered null is not believing in the rules.
Hanging a line around an area is purely a hack for convenience, not a principled distinction. Hanging a line around an entire city is a hack of a hack for convenience.
If the law is a divine mandate, you should actually follow it! Creating your own loopholes and then acting like observing the Sabbath is still somehow sacrosanct is pure intellectual nonsense
You are still describing following the rules as not following the rules.
I'd like to know how you define "effectively rendered null". Just because a rule is easy to follow doesn't make it null.
I'd also point out that plenty of religions do this sort of thing. Using annullments because your religion doesn't allow divorce, for instance.
I'm describing not following the rules as not following the rules. Men introducing exceptions to divinely ordained rules and then following those rules is very much breaking the rules.
That would be fine if you were still actually following it. But the entire point of eruv is making it so you don't have to follow onerous rules anymore because they are hard.
If you think that the division between public and private is entirely nonsense and a misinterpretation of the law, that's fine. Totally legitimate.
If you think that the traditional view is correct in its interpretation of shabbat, that's fine. Entirely consistent and expected.
But what isn't legitimate is coming up with an interpretation of the law, deciding that is sacrosanct and correct, and then, later on when that process turns out to be onerous, deciding that God really views some string wrapped around a space of, really, any size, as a way to entirely neutralize that interpretation of the law. Divinely ordained deontology that you introduce weird little hacks into is pure nonsense. Are you supposed to take things out into public or not? And if it's really about the spirit of the law, not the letter (not really something I have ever heard from a Talmudic scholar, but let's say for the sake of argument), then the line isn't necessary at all.
And if you'd said that you prefer your religion's weird nonsense over other religion's nonsense, that would be one thing. Requiring Hail Marys as penitence is entirely nonsensical, sure. But you acted like your religion is different. It's not. You're just used to it.
The rule isn't about "taking things out in public". It's a specific set of requirements. "Take things out in public" is an approximation.
I'm not actually religious and don't follow the eruv. (I do know what it is, of course.)
And there's a difference between "isn't a legitimate interpretation of the law" and "isn't logically coherent". I can understand an eruv. I can't understand the Trinity, and I don't believe there's any substance there for me to understand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link