site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My problem there is the reliability of the box; how do I know this is true, how do I gauge the builders of the box, is this going to turn out like that scene in Star Trek: The Final Frontier?

But if I can trust it, then yes: open the box. To know is better than not to know.

Contra Aquinas, the intellect itself is fallen and incapable of definitively or reliably answering questions of God's existence.

Because of the Fall, our understanding is darkened, yes, but we still have the ability to use reason to work out what is true and what is not. Post-modernism cuts off the branch it is sitting on, because if we can't know anything, then it is itself a useless tool. If we throw out "you can't definitively answer the question of God's existence" then all we have to fall back on is subjective experience, and then of course "well why Jesus instead of Buddha or Mohammed? Or Wicca?" What if my subjective experience is that God does not exist? Why should I accept your "experiental" evidence of God, since your experiences could be down to drugs, something wrong with your brain, or simple self-deception - 'I asked God for a sign and then the window blew open' - no, that was just the wind, not God.

The existence of God can be perceived experientially, and is probably a more robust evidence for God than mere philosophical puzzling (Colossians 2:8).

The experiences are the basis for the philosophy; that's the whole idea, that there is evidence for the existence of God in the world around us and the nature of reality, and we can use our God-given intellects to work that out the same way we can use them to work out acids and bases and how they react.

Subjective/experiental belief can lapse into Fideism or the 'signs and wonders' version which further degrades into Prosperity Gospel nonsense.

is this going to turn out like that scene in Star Trek: The Final Frontier?

Amusingly this is exactly where my mind went reading the OP as well. Final Frontier catches a lot of flack from Star Trek fans and granted it's not as good the installments before and after it, but I've always liked it, and the interactions between Kirk and Sybock (culminating in that scene) are most of the reason.

But why wouldn't an all knowing and all powerful god show himself to all people, but in reality restricts himself to just a geographical area, one that happens to correspond closely to the geographical area that the Roman Empire ruled. And; of course, the Eastern half of that has it's own even more absurd prophet who has taken the hearts and minds of that portion of the human race.

The Post-Modernists are right in that we can't force anyone to believe anything. That doesn't make a completely irrational belief the same as a rational one. That you can differentiate them yourself is all the evidence I need.

Why wouldn't God show himself to everyone? Usually because they're not ready and such proof would not be helpful to them. This applies on a personal level and on a geographic (really, cultural) level.

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