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 -
Congratulations United States, you are Pope!
Edit: Sorry if that is too short but I am currently watching the livestream from Europe and am totally baffled.
Apparently a progressive in general terms, albeit not a radical one by the standards of the church.
He has an X account which, unfortunately, seems to be aimed at dunking on the US republican party.
That twitter post mostly links to a longer article on the National Catholic Reporter.
It starts by quoting JD Vance:
Now, JD Vance is is a Catholic, and he is making a claim about a "Christian concept" which is vaguely reminiscent of Subsidiarity.
Now, I am not a fan of non-political organizations meddling in day-to-day political affairs, be it the American Mathematical Society or the RCC. But that does not mean that these organizations should keep quiet when they feel that their teachings are misrepresented. If Trump claims that 15 is a prime number, then I will not consider it undue meddling if the AMS releases a press statement which says that he is wrong. If JD Vance had called it a common-sense, Protestant, Jewish or Hindu concept, then I would consider the NCR reaction undue, like most cases of "my religion says what you do is bad". But a bishop disagreeing with a Catholic who explicitly invoked Christianity does not seem undue to me, never mind "dunking"
More options
Context Copy link
Because pope Francis famously didn’t like American conservatives and Prevost was known as a brown noser.
Oh yeah, the universal teaching of the historic Church has been all about anti-the Republican Party of the United States.
I'm being forcefully reminded why Americanism was declared a heresy.
What are you on about? Pope Francis was known for disliking and distrusting conservative Americans regardless of other factors even as the USCCB became more close to the Republican Party, not less.
I don’t doubt that pope Leo XIV’s criticisms of the Trump admin are genuine, but his decision to emphasize them rather than issues with democrats(abortion, some stuff with religious freedom/antidiscrimination and education policy, LGBT+, etc) was probably contingent. He’s literally a registered republican.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am generally skeptical of “he was only pretending to be [x]” arguments.
He was also a registered Republican.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That just means he's a US bishop, they (and indeed the hierarchy in general) tend to be seen as "quasi-Communist" on economic matters and "rabid sexists/homophobes" on sexual liberation matters.
Well, yes, because Christianity is quasi- or proto- Communist.
Luke 12:48 has "from each according to his abilities", Acts 4:32-45 has "to each according to his needs".
Interestingly, the previous Leo was not exactly pro-Socialist...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
His Bachelor's was also in Mathematics. I am liking this new pope more and more by the minute!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link