site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32178 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's a certain strain of converts who just puzzle me. They're generally liberal, so why they think Islam is going to be softer on sin I have no idea. Some of it is the kind of mistaken Afro-nationalism that imagines Islam as the 'true' faith of native Africans and Christianity as being imposed on the enslaved, so converting to Islam is going back to your true roots. But white converts don't have that.

And generally white converts do seem to convert because of the traditional and orthodox views that Islam retains, that it hasn't compromised with the modern world. But every so often you do get the types who seem to treat it as 'oh, everyone is Buddhist now, how about I try Islam?' for their fix of Exotic Eastern Religion. And the likes of this woman, who back in 2006 claimed she could be both Christian and Muslim, that being an Episcopal minister didn't mean she couldn't also be Muslim. Even for The Episcopal Church, which tolerates a certain looseness in adherence to doctrine, this was a step too far.

Redding's views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.

She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.

She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God's will.

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

She considers Jesus her savior. At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, "he has connected me with God," she said.

That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. "I'm still getting to know him," she said.

Since the original topic was fantasy authors, I can't help but bring up the inimitable Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker (born Phillip Barker), recently posthumously cancelled for having written a pro-nazi alternate history novel (published by the same company as The Turner Diaries) and serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Historical Review. He was also a recognized scholar of Urdu and other languages. Truly an interesting guy.

I'm going to guess that most of this (exceedingly rare - Western converts to Islam are a rarity in genral, after all) type are mostly just your garden-variety "truthseeker" type, and Islam (generally some personal, Westernized interpretation of Sufism) is just one "truth" to be tried on among the many for some time, a flavor of the day. The important thing is not the part of the truth journey they're on at whatever moment, it's the journey itself.

Sufism does seem to be the favoured version, I think because of the devotional poets who, since the 19th century to Western ears, seem a lot more approachable in terms of religious fervour. All cuddly mysticism and the touch of the exotic.

It's a terrible misrepresentation, but it's the same kind of fate Buddhism suffers with the "eat, pray, love" treatment or Kabbalah did when red-thread kabbalism became a fad back in the 90s among celebrities.

I think that's the phenomenon David Chapman writes about a lot in his essays on Buddhism -- how Westernized "therapeutic Buddhism" has very little in common with how Buddhism is actually traditionally practiced, and if anything resembles more 19th century German Idealism, of all things?

There's a strong history of contact between real Buddhism and German Idealism. Schopenhauer is the most well known of the lot to be influenced by Buddhism. Less well known are the various Germans who just went to Asia, became monks and never came back. Many great works of scholarly Buddhism were written by this sort of monk.

The point is there is a very deep continuum between Buddhism as traditionally practice and the stuff that goes on in corporate mindfulness trainings in the West. The core of Buddhsm always has been a particular lineage of meditation teachings. Anyone seriously investigating those teachings seriously is a Buddhist; whatever the particular cultural-religious penumbra he surrounds it with.

Interesting, thanks.

EDIT: ... did I say anything wrong?

I don't think you said anything wrong. What was the worry?

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