site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30438 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

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.

13
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

White guilt = original sin in the Bible

Your just debating a new age Christian

One day I need to make a top level comment about uses and abuses of the term 'original sin'. Calling anything and everything bad that involves guilt a form of original sin is distressingly common, and like the 'wokeness as religion' metaphor I think it's usually a bad metaphor that tells us almost nothing about wokeness or guilt, but what really drives me crazy is that it seems to be made in almost-complete ignorance of what original sin actually is.

I realise that theological literacy is pretty low even among Christians, and maybe I shouldn't expect secularists to know much better, but if this analogy is going to be so dominant, we can at least take the time to explore it a bit further.

I'm a former missionary kid with more theological and biblical training than most pastors. What's your criticism?

You wrote a lot (and I have theological training) but what is wrong with this comparison. You gave zero analysis of what is actually wrong with it.

Before you make a top level post you should make a basic post on why the comparison is wrong.

I would say the difference is how far you extend the concept of original sin into its Christian context before applying the analogy.

Let's say you describe original sin narrowly as follows: "When you first came into being, the weight of original sin was already upon you. It exists both prior to and independent of any moral choices that you might make."

I think that definition works in both a Christian context and a woke context. But if you broaden the scope of discussion to things like "where did original sin come from," "is there a solution to original sin," "is original sin something that is universal among humanity, or only a subset thereof," etc., then you start getting severe divergences between the two contexts, and the analogy quickly breaks down.

That said, I believe that the analogy based on the narrow definition is on point, and the surrounding differences may also be usefully contrasted.

Original sin is both guilt and temporal consequences for sin- so people after original sin deal with guilt for Adam's disobedience, and with all sorts of imperfections introduced, both the punishments written in the bible but also disease, physical imperfection, and inclination towards evil.

This is, superficially, pretty similar to how particularly extreme wokes view "whiteness". That this view is bullshit has nothing more to do with the metaphor than whether or not all human beings are descended from a literal Adam and Eve who lived in a garden in southern Iraq 6,000 years ago. I mean there's obviously differences- original sin doesn't apply to whites only, for example- but it's not a terrible metaphor and is often used by the wokes themselves.

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