site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35257 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nah, not performatively making fun of Catholics. Either it's one of the WomenPriests crowd, or it's one of the mainstream Protestant churches that went all-in on the women clergy, LGBT clergy, etc. Places like Episcopalians and Lutherans claim to be liturgical churches so they follow a particular order of service that still has roots in original Catholic liturgy.

One of the tiny, trendy, progressively liberal Christian bunches. Not mocking anyone but themselves with this silliness, because it's not going to bring in the LGBT people to fill the pews, and it's only driving away the more theologically conservative.

I feel like I’m being slow but I can’t figure out the “Jesus Christ who had two dads reference” especially if god had plural pronouns. Joseph is one dad though non-biological.

I feel like I want to save this video for next time I feel like making an argument that “woke/pride” is really a religion as an example.

Well, that's because they're Protestants and downplay the role of Mary 😁 (I've had worse arguments online with hardline Reformed/Calvinists who treat Mary as nothing more than an incubator; she pops out the sprog and that's it, her role is over and done with, and she wasn't that big a deal as mom anyway because any woman would have done).

Mostly it's them trying to be clever (and missing) at conservative/orthodox Christians in general about "oh you are all hung up about the gays, and protest the likes of 'Heather has two mommies', well your boy Jesus has two daddies, how do you like that?" It's an oldie but a (not) goodie that's floating around for a while.

They take God the Father and then Joseph as the foster father. They're pretty dumb theologically (and every other way). It's just them being dickheads (er, am I allowed say that?)

How is that tied to downplaying Mary? They're just going for connecting it to gay marriage, as you said.

In any case, as a "hardline Reformed/Calvinist" myself, Mary clearly had a bigger role than merely being pregnant with Jesus—she was his mother, raising him. I suppose we also see her at the cross. That's a lot less than the excess of devotion that Roman Catholics practice, of course, but it isn't nothing.

"Two daddies" displays the role of Mary as mother.

I mean, sure, but they're downplaying for a political point, not for a religious point.

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