site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Seems to me that the big problem with hell is that in the modern world we don’t know what the next right step is. Things are so complex and even Christianity is so divided it’s hard to know who is right.

I’m, uh, pretty sure that the problem is all the suffering. The infinity of suffering. Squaring that circle with a loving God has led to far more contortions than mere earthly disagreements.

Yeah, no, that's a big problem too. It's sad, I genuinely want to believe in Christianity and/or God, but good lord is it difficult to square the mythos with the modern world in any logical or rational manner.

Under a Christian understanding of hell, that suffering is earned, and so carrying it out is just. The real difficulty is why God would create humans who would do so grievous a thing as sin. There's the "free-will" response, but I'm convinced that Calvinism is correct. I'll just go with Romans 9:

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

That is, a hearty dose of "who am I to judge God" (see Job), while recognizing that that is indeed within God's righteous judgment—here giving the possibility that at least some is intended to highlight the his mercy, where it does exist. And, of course, Genesis 50:20's "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (referring to Joseph's brothers selling him) is relevant.

Christianity solves this problem in a neat way. Imagine that you have with you a perfect friend and mentor who wants to shape you into a morally great person, and who uses the moral principle of “do unto others what you would have them of unto you”, and who has a collection of teachings he sent you. Now imagine he died to rescue you from eternal punishment. Then imagine the power of his moral teaching (the substance in a sense) resurrected himself, and that he will come back to judge you according to your soul — and those who are evil he will cast into hell.

Whatever action results from the belief is the next step, which is wholly contingent on a person’s background, personality, place in the moral process, etc (as it should be). By this I mean that a repentant pathological liar who cuts his lies by 5% every day is going to please God, versus a usually truthful person who has begun to lie 1% more every day without guilt. And it’s like this with all sins obviously. This is one of the points of the parable of the tax collector (an immoral profession) and the Pharisee, and the lesson of the widow’s mite. This is why the topic of moral discussion is not the consequent effects (actions) but the antecedent source (“out of the heart…”).

Then you might say something like, “oh, well then I will save my repentance for much later in my life”, but of course if you imagine an intelligent future judge this will not fly. What will be magically different about your procrastinating soul that is not in it today, when you are younger? It will be even harder to repent if your soul grows hardened, and of course there are many parables about this too. How would you personally judge someone who puts off the most important tasks out of cleverness? That is how God will judge. And in any case, the hour is near (the early Christians lived as if Christ was already “at the door ready to knock”; whether they truly believed that the world will end is far less significant than that they lived accordingly).

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