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 -
I think this framing is wrong. Ordinary people may have not expected to see a resurrection or a theophany in their lifetimes, but while moderns tend to conceptualize a miracle as God suspending the ordinary operations of an otherwise mechanistic, naturalistic universe, pre-moderns tended to view the hand of the gods in everything. Sickness is from the supernatural world. The outcomes of wars are credited to the gods. Natural disasters reflect divine displeasure. Everywhere they looked, there was evidence of the spirit world at work. People believed in the immediate reality of the supernatural and acted accordingly. As late as the 19th century, French peasants left peace offerings for fairies in the woods. To an ancient Israelite, Yahweh parting the Red Sea may not be quantitatively different from Yahweh empowering Israel to defeat its enemies in battle. We would call the former a miracle because we would consider it naturalistically inexplicable, but not the latter. But for an ancient, while the the parting of a sea would be much rarer and more magnificent than a victory in battle, it might not be qualitatively different, because everything only happens because the gods make it so, even if sometimes what the gods make so is more unique and incredible than other times.
More options
Context Copy link