site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32408 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In other words if a church says a group is sinful,

I think this is how it's perceived more broadly by non-Christians, but misses the specific point that (most?) Christian denominations believe everyone is sinful. If you described a group of devout Catholics as sinful, I suspect the response would be "yes we are," with some commentary about confession, forgiveness, and repentance.

I dunno, how does a gay person seek confession, forgiveness and repentance without giving up his identity as a gay person?

Isn't there a bit of a parallel here to offering Sanderson forgiveness if he gives up his identity as a Mormon?

I'm on Sanderson's side on this, to be clear. I really don't have a problem with the LDS church as a basic tenet of pluralism. They reciprocate, too: they supported the federal same-sex marriage law that was recently signed into law.

But I do think it's a bit obscurantist to claim that gay people are positioned similarly in the eyes of the LDS church to the rest of the faithful on the basis that sin is a feature of the human condition.

If a thief claims that kleptomania is a factual component of his identity, which of the steps of your comment apply, and which don't?

I mean, yeah, in that case the kleptomaniac 100% has to give up his identity to become right with society/god/etc., as he should.

I think that's really the point, though. LDS Church sees gays as morally on par with kleptomaniacs. And this whole thread is a complaint that some particularly strident trans SF/F author sees Mormons as morally on par with kleptomaniacs.

Ugh. This is getting combative. I truly hold no grudge against the LDS Church. They (now) walk the walk on pluralism. I am fine with them believing and even professing that gayness is sinful and bars one from Mormon Heaven. I don't think Mormons should suffer any retribution for their affiliation with the Church. This trans "filthcore" author is behaving badly.

All I want to insist upon, here, is that the LDS Church really does hold gays in lower esteem than the average person. That's their right and I'm totally fine with them doing so. But it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.

it just really isn't accurate to claim that they see gays as morally on par with the rest of humanity in the sense that we're all sinners.

I don't see how that follows. I think they would say to the kleptomaniac, "Dude, we're all sinners. We all have our tests and trials. We all sometimes experience strong desires for things we know are wrong. [Young preacher adds in a story about having been an alcoholic or whatever.] But you can choose to embrace it and make it a core part of your identity... or you can choose to fight against it and reject it. That choice is what determines who you are."

What follows from that is that if they look around in the world and see that there is a group of out and proud kleptos, screaming about the importance of being sensitive to their identity, they're going to say, "Yeah, most of those people have been informed, and they've made their choice." I don't see how that somehow obviates a Morman belief that they're Imago Dei (do the Mormans hold this? is definitely valid for most other branches of Christianity) and equally possessing inherent human value. Most Christians (again, not as familiar with Mormans, specifically) would be the first to point out that if a klepto-prodigal son made a choice and a change, they'd be overjoyed, specifically because of the person's moral worth.

I don't see how that somehow obviates a Morman belief that they're Imago Dei (do the Mormans hold this? is definitely valid for most other branches of Christianity) and equally possessing inherent human value.

Mormons can still think gays and kleptomaniacs possess human value while still thinking less of them. I think that thinking less of kleptomaniacs is a good thing for society; theft is bad and we should try pretty hard to discourage it. I understand why Mormons think less of homosexuals, but ultimately disagree with their conclusion, and I think gays should be treated just as well as straights. To me, trying to discourage homosexuality is insulting and morally wrong*.

*I do think it's acceptable to discourage the encouragement of homosexuality. There's a big difference between telling your kid "Don't be gay" and telling your kid's elementary school not to be teaching intersectionality.

I'm not exactly sure what we're disagreeing about at this point. Is it that you think committed "out and proud" gays and committed "out and proud" kleptos are morally similar? Or that you think committed "out and proud" kleptos are in the same moral boat of basically good people who are nonetheless tempted to sin per the universal human condition? Both propositions seem pretty hard to defend, but perhaps I'm biased due to being gay.

Yes but they aren't disowning their kids for existing in a state of sin in general. In theory you may be correct, in practice it leads to discriminatory behavior against certain groups for very human reasons.

So if those groups are able to assemble coalitions to gain power then its likely to have a goal of stopping that happening.

With the caveat that disowning of children is a fringe practice in any case, Christians have in fact disowned their children for rejecting their parents rules and embracing a sinful lifestyle in other ways, from heterosexual fornication to drug use.

from heterosexual fornication to drug use.

Yes and arguably that's now part of the same anti-Christian coalition, no? It's not coincidence that the coalition includes gay people, pro choice, pro-divorce etc. etc. Gay people are an example but they're not the whole enchilada. It's particular sins that beget particular groups which beget particular platforms.

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