site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31729 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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:

“British history reflects the reunion of Israel,” Stephen explained. “This window is not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that the sovereigns who are coroneted here are adorned with a crown—a crown with exactly twelve jewels embedded around it. Nor is it coincidence that the symbols on the Arms of Westminster are adorned with the breastplate of the high priest of Israel.”

[a picture of the breastplate worn by the priests of Israel alongside the portcullis arms of Westminster]

I had seen that familiar breastplate symbol throughout London, with its grid-like shape creating exactly twelve spaces, presumably to hold twelve jewels, one for each tribe. The breastplate symbol also included a looped chain on each side, presumably showing how easy this breastplate could be fitted onto a high priest. It was familiar to me from LDS gospel art depictions of the high priests of ancient Israel, who used the breastplate, according to scripture, as a Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30).

“The breastplate,” Stephen explained, “is the principal symbol of Britain’s Houses of Parliament.”

Or on the names:

Other scholars have noted the interesting construct of words like England and Anglo-Saxon. The word England might be derived from the word Angle-land—the Angles being a Germanic tribe that migrated to the British Isles during the fifth and sixth centuries BC. Angle is a Hebrew word meaning “Bull” or “Ox.” These animals are the biblical symbol for Joseph, as in, “Let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph . . . His glory is like the firstlings of his bullock” (Deuteronomy 33:16–17). Other examples of the same are also very present in the biblical account.

Saxon also has a fascinating proposed origin. Some scholars propose that it has its origins in the name Isaac. Dropping the I from Isaac (vowels are not used in Hebrew spelling) leaves us with Saac. God told Abraham: “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Genesis 21:12; see also Romans 9:7; Hebrews 11:18). The Israelites are called “the house of Isaac” (Amos 7:16). If the theory is correct, the Anglo-Saxons were derived from this same biblical house—they are “Isaac’s sons.” Or in Hebrew, they are “Saac’s sons”—hence the name Saxons.

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.

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