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 -
I want to talk about the AI video that Trump reposted, where he is flying a plane with 'King Trump' on the side, wearing a crown, dumping a payload of feces on a crowd of No Kings protestors in NYC.
Frankly, I keep thinking I can't be surprised anymore by the depths which Trump (or more realistically, his social media team0 will stoop too, and yet here we are...
Ultimately as a Christian, I find this sort of blatant hatred and mockery of the outgroup quite disturbing. I understand that staid, boring, conservatism has lost majorly over the last few decades. I understand that the right needs some vitalism, some dynamism, some sort of way to act in an agentic way that isn't just mindlessly opposing whatever progressives are doing at the moment, and then slowly backing off and letting progressives have what they want over the course of a few years.
However, I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. At this point, while Trump definitely is effective at rallying the base, I simply find his aesthetics to be revolting. It's hard to countenance not just the outright hatred of the outgroup, but the sheer crassness that is presented here.
Not just that, but why would he egg on this idea that he wants to be king? It makes zero strategic sense from my perspective, all it does is fan the flames. I suppose if he wants to fan the flames of the culture war, fine, but that's also not something I'm behind.
Anyway, the current coalition of the right, where Christian or even just classical conservatives are sort of holding their nose and voting for Trump, seems increasingly unstable to me. I suppose we'll see how things end up.
What would you say your take is on the aesthetics of Saint Louis the IX?
Or the aesthetics of Charles Martel?
Perhaps Saint Bede’s aesthetics when discussing the Hammer of the Moors?
Speaking of Saracens, I always enjoy the very modern quote that Ridley Scott puts into Saladin’s mouth in Kingdom of Heaven
I would happily take a King who refuses to negotiate with infidels, or who grinds them small in slaughter, or delivers them the punishment due to their wickedness, over someone who cares about modern liberal aesthetics. That’s how my side, any side really, gets lasting victories.
This is all a Motte-appropriate long winded way to say, “Modern liberal aesthetics have sucked the nobility and grandeur out of everything. We’ve got to go through the grinding small part before we get out the other end and back to the beautiful and noble aesthetics that I suspect you and I both prefer.”
Don't also forget Jesus Christ himself, who talked shit all the time especially about Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, brood of vipers or children of hell. He called moneychangers in the Temple as robbers. Paul was also great shittalker, such as when he said to Elymas: You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. He was also great at sarcasm like Galatians 5:12 when he basically told the agitators pushing for circumcision that they should go all the way and cut off all their junk. On top of that he named those agitators as dogs and evildoers - I'd say he would say the same to anybody pushing for transitions for instance. The other time Paul bragged how he handed ones Alexander and Hymenaeus over to Satan in order to teach them not to blaspheme.
This emasculated Christianity, when some of them are concerned by words such as poop is absolutely ridiculous. Sarcasm and harsh rhetoric especially when condemning sin definitely has place in Christianity.
Jesus criticized the Pharisees very harshly, it's true. He didn't mock them, though. He loved them and his criticism was ultimately aimed at trying to bring them to change their ways. The same cannot be said of Trump.
So you now see into his heart? In fact mocking rhetoric and satire is very effective in getting the message across at least to stop other people from doing what you consider as a bad or immoral behaviour. Mockery even related to flatulence or excrements was often used even in the Bible, e.g. in Kings where prophet Micaiah mockingly basically tells false prophet Zedekiah, that he gets his prophecies when he shits on the toilet - that his prophecies are farts and shit. As other said, Martin Luther himself was quite enamored with flatulence and excrement, often using it as a rhetorical device such as when he wrote that pope Paul III farts so loudly, that it is a wonder he did not tear his asshole. There are number of saints, theologians and martyrs, who were not afraid to use mockery of sin, satire or even literal shit jokes and similar rhetoric to spread the word of the Lord and save souls.
Anyways I get it that you may be some sort of pearl clutching Christian, who may be horrified with such a crass thing like a shit joke. You do you - but do not pretend that it represents the prevailing stance of other Christians. Which by the way may also go against the second commandment of taking the Lords name in vain in contrast with some random shit joke, as you present your own personal pet peeve as if you are speaking for all Christians. Nothing could be farther away from truth.
The vast majority of the world’s Christian’s would not see this as an endorsement.
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