site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34907 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My problem with the ad campaign is that the money is spent poorly. With that amount you could wrangle Christians together to produce a victim complex lobbying arm that demands one attractive crucifix-wearer in every show and on every board of directors.

Emphasis mine; and in the words of a small green Jedi, "That is why you fail".

@TracingWoodgrains you can accuse me of being "uncharitable" (you may even be correct) but this right here is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I claim that the woke left and the alt right are fruit of the same tree.

Well let’s discuss it.

Many powerful groups in America use a victim narrative to further their interests, in particular Jewish Americans (discussed in the recent “Day of Hate” topic you can find in my reply history). Recently, Asian Americans (the least assaulted group in the nation, the doors for whom were open in a way they would never be in Asia for Americans) have also been winning publicity with claims of extreme assault, and perhaps Oscars with claims of under-representation (they are the most over-represented group). Indigenous groups just a few years ago burned down many Catholic Churches over a largely meritless victimhood-promoting report on the Komloops School burials. There is no group but White Christians who fail to use a victim complex. But this was not always so.

Christians once thrived on a victim narrative. This “saving victim” narrative was once crucial to Christians, who prayed “O Saving Victim lend thine aid, our foes press hard on every side”. Early Christians talked about “being persecuted for righteousness sake”. Jesus says that blessedness (happiness) lies in being persecuted as a Christian which leads to heaven. Jesus pointed the finger at a powerful group as causing this persecution and cursed them; early Christians too were persecuted by Jews and Romans and were venerated as martyrs. The Mass focuses not on the resurrection of Jesus, but on his death and sacrifice.

The Church in its earliest days saw themselves as God’s true victims. When presenting their message to others, they preached the glory and memory of their savior who was willing victimized. And in their rituals, the feeling of pity and love is stirred up by acknowledging the torture of God at the hand of sinners. This is enough to consider a victim narrative natural to Christianity. If a victim narrative is natural to Christianity, then it should be used to benefit Christians.

Many powerful groups in America use a victim narrative to further their interests,

And do you expect me to see this as something good or admirable? If so why? What value does it add? What sort of principles are being maintained?

You say Christians once thrived on a victim narrative, but as @FarNearEverywhere observes, there is a world of Difference between the attitude espoused by the Apostles and the early Church fathers and that embraced by both contemporary Jews and modern-day progressives. I would go so far as to argue that this difference is in fact one of Christianity's core strengths.

Rather than wallowing in self-pity or demanding worldly restitution we are urged to literally "rejoice in our sufferings" because by enduring them and "bearing the cross" as Jesus did, we make ourselves more worthy.

I think the theology of O Salutaris Hostia differs slightly from Help, help, I am being oppressed!

Is this relevant? Is Cafe an alt-righter?

I recognize that the parent comment is probably deserving of a modhat, but at the same time, from one perspective--a rather jaded perspective, mind--Cafe is simply recognizing that furthering a group's power in the modern first world requires getting the management on your side.

Believing that their power needs to be furthered is a pretty good indicator that the person speaking has a perspective utterly alien to Christianity. More generally, a belief that power itself is what determines outcomes is a big part of the commonality we're mutually groping toward.

That's a more fair and direct criticism.

I don't know, but based on their comment history I would argue that they are at least alt-right adjacent.

As for the rest, I feel like this might just be one of those fundamental points upon which we must disagree.

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