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 -
A lot of Paul's letters need to be read in the context of the audience he was writing to, and as far as I can tell, it seems as though some of Paul's early audiences literally believed the world was about to end, and therefore had concluded some combination of 1) ordinary morality does not apply any more, and 2) we don't need to plan or work for the future. There is no point to either if the world is about to end.
Paul, at least in his early letters, probably believes that the world is about to end as well. (cf. 1 Cor 7:26, "in view of the impending crisis".) However, he spends a long time trying to shut down the people who have concluded that therefore nothing matters and they can do what they like. 1 Cor 6:12-20 and 1 Cor 10:23-33 seem to be arguing with the hedonists, who think that because the Law has ceased to apply they can do anything they like. 2 Thess 3:6-15 seems to be arguing with the layabouts - people who sponged off the community's charity, probably thinking that there is no reason to lay foundations for a future that will never arrive. We can also see that part of the context is Paul's defense of his own ministry - he himself lived off charity, as a wandering teacher hosted by different communities of believers, and it sounds as if some might have accused Paul himself of taking advantage of his hosts. So in 3:7 he argues that he himself was not idle, and that he would never countenance idleness.
Compare also the Didache, which requires, in chapters 12 and 13, that groups of believers offcer charity and assistance to other believers who come to stay with them. But it puts some limitations on this:
You must welcome and assist believers for a few days, but only a few days, lest they take advantage of you. Believers who want to stay longer must work to support themselves and the community.
I think this is all pretty common sense, as an attempt to balance a strong imperative towards charity and hospitality along with a desire to not be taken advantage of.
If we want to draw a lesson from that for today's politics, I think the principles are obvious and hard to argue with. Provide some charity and assistance for the needy. Require everybody to work as far as they are reasonably able. Do not let yourself be taken advantage of by those who seek to live in idleness.
More options
Context Copy link