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 -
The first is silly but mostly harmless. The other two (especially the last) are practically Mormon doctrine. The idea is that God organized things so that a country with religious liberty would be created.
Would love to hear more about this. Sounds like he was being literal unfortunately, but just want to confirm he's not being metaphorical? Mormon doctrine believes that everyone on Earth will be "adopted" into one of the tribes of Israel and given a purpose/duty based on which tribe they are adopted into.
He's not being metaphorical.
Chapter two of The Pilgrim Hypothesis is a straightforward introduction to British Israelism. He argues that the lost tribes migrated northwest into Europe where they interbred with Germanic tribes, and the introduction of Hebrew to ancient German caused the first Germanic sound shift.
Specifically, he interprets Genesis 49:22 ("Joseph is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a spring; his branches run over the wall") to mean that Joseph's descendants must have come to America - 'the wall' is the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore he also wants to connect the Pilgrims to the biological descendants of Joseph. A Mormon elder argued this in the 1880s, you see, so now that needs to be justified somehow. It seems like this has been a line in Mormonism for a while? He cites another early pamphlet - it seems of a piece with Mormon pseudohistory about Native Americans. He relies heavily on this piece as well, and dodgy etymological arguments.
At times it gets rather comical. He does rely on nonsensical folk etymologies ('Saxons' as 'Isaac's sons', 'British' as 'berit', covenant, plus 'ish', man, etc.), many of which rely on outright false claims (he claims that 'angle' is Hebrew for bull, which it... isn't). There's also a lot of conspiratorial nonsense about symbols. The Great Seal of the United States has some biblical imagery on it (e.g. the stars above the eagle's head form a Star of David, surrounded by rays of light and clouds, reminiscent of Moses' trip up Sinai), which apparently proves something. British monarchs wear a crown with twelve jewels on it (do they? I can't tell which crown he's talking about, and St. Edward's Crown has a lot more than twelve stones on it) and there were twelve tribes of Israel. He mistakes the portcullis symbol of parliament for a breastplate and then says it's reminiscent of the Urim and Thummin.
It's genuinely that bizarre. I feel I need to prove I'm not just making this up:
Or on the names:
Yes, he appears to have mixed up BC and AD.
It's all like this - a series of coincidences held together with thumbtacks and spit, so that he can declare that the Pilgrims' voyage and the founding of America satisfies some sort of biblical prophecy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link