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 -
There is no limiting principle. There is no objective definition of "reasonable" or "unreasonable" behavior. There is no objective definition of "tolerant" or "intolerant". All we can do is to look with clear eyes at what is actually being said, and what it seems to lead to. Here, what is actually being said is that Christians should be punished for stating their beliefs publicly, because their beliefs are anti-social. That is an attitude that seems both very bad and increasingly popular as the old norms continue to decay. It isn't a simple problem either: anti-social beliefs cannot be rigorously defined, definately exist, and definately need to be dealt with.
There's nothing I can do to save you. Your will is your own. We each make our decisions and live with the consequences, and most people have made their decisions pretty decisively, it seems to me. Productive interaction requires common ground, and the common ground we share is Reason, its nature and observable limitations. So if possible, I argue with you and others here about that, and mainly limit my comments on Christianity to when other people bring it up, as here. If that seems rather callous re: eternal damnation and torture, well, it doesn't seem to me that we share a common understanding of the concept of Hell, but the best solution there would probably be to recommend The Great Divorce.
On the other hand, there's no particular reason why you should trust any assurance I could give you. After all, as you note, the Inquisition happened. Likewise, there's no reason I should trust any assurance you could give me, since the Cheka and the Khmer Rouge and their other variants also happened, and rather more recently. One difference might be in the stakes we each see on the table; you think this life is all there is, and I do not, so I am at least potentially less invested in the outcomes of this life than you are. That cuts both ways, though.
The problem in general is a wicked one.
More options
Context Copy link