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 -
This is an absurdly broad definition of "religion." Under this definition why isn't utilitarianism, for example, a religion? Libertarianism? Heck, philosophical liberalism? Kantianism? Virtue ethics? If your definition of "religion" is so broad that it contains not just those things thought of traditionally as religion but functionally any normative system I have to question the utility of your definition.
What about people whose sincerely held beliefs cannot be easily squared with the facts of how evolution works? Is school biology class required to be scrupulously neutral between "Animals evolved the way they did due to natural selection processes without any divine input", "Animals evolved the way they did in accordance with a plan set out by God", and "There's no such thing as evolution, all the evidence of it is a lie told by Satan"? And what about non-Christian or non-Abrahamic accounts of how animals and the world came to be? Are schools required to teach all of them equally?
I am in need of clarification. Do you think putting up statues of the Dark Lord or a religious rite for abortion on demand are things that cannot, due to their nature, be sincerely held religious beliefs or merely that no people who claim they are sincerely held beliefs are being truthful? If the former, what about them means they cannot be? Especially if "wokism" is a religion, entitled to all the protections you mention here. If the latter, can you give me the evidence you apparently have of insincerity by all the people espousing this belief?
More generally, do we really want courts (more) involved in the question of sincerity? It seems like this could easily go in a direction that would be against what you want. "We find defendant's beliefs that his religion requires him to avoid entanglements in gay weddings to be an insincere cover for his hate for gay people. Bake the cake bigot."
From my atheist perspective there is no such thing as a "non-sectarian" expression of religious belief. Their are perhaps ones that are more or less inclusive of various kinds of beliefs but there is no such thing as a religiously neutral expression of religious belief.
Welcome to the world of legal disputes when it comes to question of religion. For instance in 1961 during Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court indeed defined religion very broadly in the famous footnote number eleven.
I like how James Lindsay thinks about religion as defined by its theology. The role of religious theology is to organize related epistemology, sociology, axiology and cosmology in one united view, it gives it a direction and coherence. In that sense theology incorporates ontological definitions of what is reality and what is human, it explores people's moral duties and ways to organize in society including in accordance to its system of knowledge. So for instance in Christianity the world and people were created by god, they have moral duty in accordance to god's laws as revealed in holy scripture, they should organize themselves in churches overseen by clergy that provide specific guidance for local policies and they should study scripture and god's creation for further expansion of knowledge of god and the world.
If I would take upon myself constructing similar "woke" theology, it could look as something like this: Our [social] reality is a social construct imposed by society that was is in turn created by man in his attempt to bring his ideas into practice - The Theory and Praxis dichotomy. Our current [social] reality is very imperfect as it was created by privileged people who posses privilege of certain class, race, sex, sexual orientation in their various intersections and who oppress the population in order to reproduce this imperfect society. Our moral duty is to criticize the current society, center the marginalized people who posses both slave and master side of the knowledge in order to promote Social Justice. In that sense the knowledge as well as other things needs to be looked upon through lenses of power relations of oppressor/oppressed. Our society should organize so that we create special departments to promote Social Justice and promote Social Justice in holistic approach ranging from schools to corporations in order to engage the population in the process of conscietization where everybody will able to engage in dialectical Theory/Praxis process where they act and then reflect upon results of their action through The Theory to perfect the society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link