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 -
Something interesting is happening in Mexico. I will preface by saying this is a fact-finding point of analysis at this time but seems interesting. I have not yet made up an opinion on the situation.
Today Mexico elected Claudia Sheinbaum. Despite being widely expected Mexico etfs and markets took a huge dive. EWW appears to be one of the more popular etfs and was down 11% today. Milei and Trump each had big day 1 sell-offs but if my memory is correct both after winning elections had calm and relatively unchanged equity indexes by the close of U.S. trading.
Sheinbaum is from the same political party that has been running Mexico - AMLO. The big difference is the election was more of a landslide than expected. Super-majorities in Congress that will be able to pass whatever they want. She is even being called by the U.S. msm as a lifelong leftist. Her grandparents when they left Europe were both Jewish and communists.
On the plus side she was mayor of Mexico City and achieved a 10-15% reduction in murder (I usually think murder data is trustworthy). She does appear to be smart and technocratic but very left. I believe I saw her show support for Palestine and there is talk she will be friendly with Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia.
The other interesting thing to me is a Jewish (secular) women feels very odd as a national candidate to me in Mexico. No Spanish or indigenous roots. And Mexico’s Jewish population is extremely small (though as always there are some big hitters). Which feels very odd to me for a society to elect such an outsider (maybe Obama is close?). Also I guess she’s had some birther style attacks.
I talked to a few Mexican friends. One said he hated her and she was a communists, also said she wasn’t Jewish which surprised me as I thought most people considered Jewish an ethnicity. The other seems more open-minded.
Trump being elected could make negotiations between them tense since they are opposites on the political spectrum.
As far as markets go I want to figure out how she will govern. Mexico does seem to have some tailwinds with reshoring so the discount today looks interesting. The counter is the degree of the election victory means she has a mandate so if she does have leftist instincts I think there is a risks Mexico ends up on an Argentina or Venezuela path for a while. If you feel confident you can underwrite her politics will be more of a technocrat with leftist vibes/rhetoric but largely AMLO continuation then it’s an interesting time to pick up Mexico exposure at a discount.
https://x.com/BrazilBrian/status/1797627767808294933
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/03/world/americas/claudia-sheinbaum-jewish-mexico-president.html
Slightly off topic, but it's kind of remarkable that Mexico elected a Jewish president before the US (and it's a younger democracy as well).
There are a number of dynamics in US politics that have made it hard for a Jewish Democrat to become President. Not impossible by any means, but difficult because of the nature of the Democratic base and the historic constituencies that made it up. The best shot would probably be as a business Republican with heartland appeal, and as Mark Levin quipped, there is something kind of intrinsically Jewish about Donald Trump. He’s a sleazy Queens slumlord who took on Manhattan and became president of the most powerful country on earth. He has chutzpah.
Trump, an honorary Jew? I'm not seeing it.
A strong New York accent is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump. Noveau riche gaudiness is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump. Shamelessly leaning into "I want my accountants wearing yarmulkes, not daishikis" stereotypes is not enough to make a Jew out of Trump.
What are you seeing that I'm not?
His enemies paint him to be about as sleazy as a typical Jew in antisemitic caricature..
Apart from his affinity to Jews, we have got chutzpah, high verbal ability, comedic talent and reputed sleaziness.
There's something to it for sure even if we're objective.
More options
Context Copy link
This is mostly a joke, but... Jewish grandchildren?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Looking at the list of Jewish presidential candidates, there's plenty of right wingers and libertarians (also curiously several green party members). Indeed, the guy who got closest was Goldwater.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's kind of a Latin American thing, right? electing outsiders. Fujimori in Peru, Bukele in el Salvador, I think some others I'm forgetting. They like electing ethnic outsiders.
There's an old joke in India that the country would be much better off if all control of governance was handed over to the very small group of Zoroastrians that constitute the Parsis.
They're known to be competent and not have any particular beef with others, and they could be as corrupt as they like without making a dent, given how few of them there are.
Unfortunately, there's even fewer now, to the point where there's hilarious advertising by both governments and their interest groups alike for the few eligible bachelors and bachelorettes left to attend a few sponsored dating events and just fucking hook up already.
So I suppose there's merit in looking at entrenched and bickering ethnic or religious groups, going fuck that and hoping someone else does better.
To be fair, the Hindus don't have a beef with anyone else, or even others, or even alone.
Maybe I'm sleep deprived on duty because I took you seriously for a moment and was going to go on a diatribe about that lol.
But surprisingly enough, there are Hindus who consume beef. More commonly in Southern India.
Once, I was stupid enough to order a hamburger in Kochi. Worst fucking abomination I've ever eaten. Like the chef had learned how to prepare it from eavesdropping on tourists talking about burgers.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen Tamil Sri Lankan restaurants with beef on the menu, is this typical or just random emigrant change?
If they're Buddhist, they're usually not that beholden to prohibitions on beef, but otherwise, they fall in with the other Hindus from down south in India who do partake in it. Those are Tamil Hindus, and even some of the Brahmins eat it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it mostly buffalo meat though?
In terms of what's usually consumed? Yes. But they do eat plain old beef, from cows.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't know that. Goes to show that there are no true universal generalisations about Hindus, including this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Always thought it was wild that Biden is only the 2nd Catholic president.
I find the disappearance of the Episcopalian (and in turn the White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant) from the hallowed halls they used to populate fascinating. There hasn't been an Episcopalian president since George Bush Sr, but it seems to me that he consciously eschewed all the WASP trappings and presented himself as a Southerner good ol' boy; Bush went so far as to adopt the culture war causes of evangelicals, such as school prayer and abortion, which don't have as much resonance to mainline protestants. More presidents have been Episcopalian than any other religion but they seem to be going the way of Unitarians and deists in terms of being a politically influential group that has all but become irrelevant.
The EC has been shrinking and getting older for a while, so it makes sense that Catholics have supplanted them on the Supreme Court for demographic reasons as well (Amy Coney Barrett has 7 kids). Perhaps the fact that every big ticket university that was religiously affiliated with mainline protestantism has become secular while the Catholic institutions have remained Catholic has something to do with them having an outsized influence in politics and law.
More options
Context Copy link
Why? Catholics have always been a minority in the US and its not like we just shake the American globe and pick someone. They are also largely new arrivals (comparatively). I think its true that, aside from Obama, every US president has traceable American lineage from before the civil war. You typically need time in America, generations of time, to actually understand the country and its politics.
Obama does have US lineage from before the civil war- amusingly, from a plantation owner.
Through which parent?
His mother. His father actually literally is from Kenya.
I did not know that. I was under the impression his mother's family were mostly Ellis Island era immigrants. But I am interested who is the outlier.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
His mother I believe. I can't remember if it's the ancestor he shares with his wife or not (that would be a little too pat)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I did include the weirdness of a Jew in this discussion because I think it’s interesting.
The lack of Catholics in the U.S. is not weird at all. Catholics have to maintain loyalty with Rome on certain matters. That’s a problem in a non majority Catholic country. But makes them very appealing for Supreme Court Justices.
It’s questionable whether Joe is Catholic at this point as he’s not in communion with Rome.
Uh huh. And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
You’re quoting a very popular historical excuse to keep the Catholics down and/or out. I hear JFK was controversial for the same reason. But if you’ve got to split hairs to figure out why it doesn’t apply to this particular guy, perhaps it’s not actually a reasonable stereotype?
When was the last time you saw one betray the U.S. for Rome, anyway?
I am Catholic. It’s not some popular historical excuse. It’s legitimate.
And yes if you publically declare yourself against fundamental Catholic doctrine you are in fact not Catholic. You are ethnic Catholic.
The reason Catholics could not be POTUS is because we had an oath to the Pope. If your not doing that then I don’t know what to say. You are just an ethnic Catholic.
I would betray the US for Rome. Though in reality I would not be betraying the US for Rome I would be leading the US on the correct path.
That seems more like a rationalization. The papacy has been corrupted by politics any number of times in history. What makes you sure Rome would actually have America's best interests at heart?
Also the Pope himself seems to somewhat disagree with you in that Biden has not been excommunicated, has taken Communion in Rome and is the President. So potentially you are wrong and Rome is right, or you are right and Rome is making decisions based on political considerations (that excommunicating a Catholic US President would be a bad idea) and if that is true then you also can't be sure that other choices are actually made for the right reasons?
Either way your surety upon this subject seems like it is built on shaky ground.
More options
Context Copy link
What's this called?
Papal Primacy.
There are some complications in theology but basically that.
And yes I think there is a fundamental difference between a sinner out of commune with the Church for their personal behavior and someone who promotes others to sin.
Right, but what's the Oath itself called and when do Catholics make it?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Biden seems to have taken communion in Rome as recently as 2021. At least formally, that would seem to imply that Rome considers his opinions to be within the range of acceptable views of Catholic orthodoxy. I'm sure he has a few heretical beliefs (his pro-choice legal stance most notably), but I doubt most people would consider him "non-Catholic" by most definitions. By that standard, most American Catholics are "non-Catholic" since it is common to deviate in opinion and practice on things like birth control, sex outside of marriage, etc.
nervous laughter
Yeah, um, about that ..... we're talking it over.
More seriously; there's a growing division in the church over just these issues. And American Catholics are definitely near the center of it. And while Pope Francis might not care so much about the opinions of Yanqui Capitalists, the realities of the needs to convert within the developing world means that he'll bend a knee to the African bishops as necessary
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not to look at U.S. catholic opinion surveys, which routinely show significant support for changing major aspects of church doctrine regarding sexuality and gender, among other things.
Then those people aren’t in communion with Rome either. Being Catholic shouldn’t be easy. Going to the gym isn’t easy.
This is like saying a 500 lb man is attractive because he thinks he’s attractive.
I mean, yes. But they're still generally recognized as "Catholic" by the broader American populace, which doesn't really pay attention to internal doctrinal niceties. Nancy Pelosi still counts as "catholic" for general U.S. purposes, despite having views on abortion and gender wildly out of step with official church doctrine (though I'm not so sure the German catholics would disagree with her...)
Nancy Pelosi is, quite literally, under church discipline for her stance on abortion.
By one archbishop, but given Communion by another. Part of the Catholic Church counts her as Catholic at the very least.
More options
Context Copy link
And what percentage of the populace knows that, or cares? If she were elected President she'd be counted as a "Catholic" just as a non-practicing Jew would be counted as "Jewish."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's more like Jews that don't keep the sabbath or eat kosher, it's part of your ancestral identity rather than representing any belief in divine revelation.
Even Sunday mass itself is obligatory, along with a smattering of holy days of obligation. So if you're not giving any weight to that rule, you're unlikely to give any weight to the others. The non-weekly attenders that happen to align with the church are doing so on accident, the church isn't the source of their opinion.
They might go to church for Christmas and Easter. Very few priests would use those as a platform to catechize the cultural Catholics. The most I've seen is gentle nudging, like "Look how hard it was to find parking today, people had to park in the neighhborhood. A lot of you must not be coming every week, and you really should!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Still Catholics have been a fairly large chunk of the population for the majority of the USA's history and include quite a few successful European ethnic groups that have not experienced significant censure. The Supreme Court is 6/9 Catholic (according to Wikipedia I have no idea who's practicing/adherent)
ACB, Thomas, and Alito are devout practicing Catholics. Kavanaugh is probably a bit less so. Roberts I have no idea.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't believe Joe has been formally excommunicated by anyone. There was a discussion not too long ago about Biden being told he could not receive communion by a bishop, but that's not a formal excommunication just a pastoral decision. Otherwise any sinner who hadn't gone to the confessional would be "excommunicated."
Perhaps he's done something that merits automatic excommunication, but that would have to be adjudicated. And I don't see how he could, unless you count "officially endorsing abortion" as "being an accomplice to people procuring completed abortions" which I don't see how that would make sense.
Technically, the figure responsible for excommunicating Joe Biden would be Wilton Cardinal Gregory, who was probably appointed archbishop of DC in part because he wouldn’t do something like that.
Is that a formal style of name?
Yes. Cardinals are referred to in the third person as ‘Christian name cardinal family name’, except for a few eastern rite figures like the Maronite patriarch. It would also be fairly normal to call him ‘Cardinal Gregory, archbishop of Washington’.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but not a universal one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There’s no way the Pope would excommunicate arguably the world’s most powerful Catholic (other than or perhaps even including himself) even if he had done something to warrant it.
This is a recent pussification of the Church. The last Head of State to be excommunicated was Tito in 1946 (for ordering the show trial of a Catholic bishop) and the previous one was King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy in 1870 for invading Rome.
The last time "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" was excommunicated was Napoleon in 1809 (also for invading Italy).
In the Middle Ages royal excommunications were commonplace, but if the criterion of "arguably the world's most powerful Catholic" is used then we have Holy Roman Emperors Otto IV in 1210 (invading Italy again), Frederick II (three times: for promising to go on Crusade and not doing so, for invading Italy, and for obstructing the Pope's attempt to lead Christian Europe's response to the Mongols), and Henry IV and Henry V (multiple times over the Investiture Controversy - in effect for claiming the authority to appoint bishops in the Holy Roman Empire in place of the Pope).
So basically what you're saying is that as long as Biden doesn't invade Italy or try to appoint bishops, he's going to be fine.
Were Donald Trump Catholic, I suspect he would be more likely to be excommunicated for promising to launch a crusade and not doing so. My understanding of the precedents is that "Congress wouldn't support it" is not an excuse and "You should have taken by calls for war against the infidel seriously but not literally" certainly isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Papacy couldn't even crush SSPX in 1988.
swole_doge_vs_cheems.jpg
More options
Context Copy link
But they did excommunicate the SSPX leadership after the Econe consecrations - schismatic consecrations are still one of the reliable ways of getting excommunicated - or technically given the law around latae sententiae, of excommunicating yourself in a way the Vatican will wish to publicise.
You will notice that most of the historical exommunications I mentioned didn't succeed in crushing anyone - the practice of unrepentant excommunicants thumbing their nose at the Papacy is as old as the practice of excommunicating people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link