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 -
Not every religion teaches that humans should submit totally to the will of the divine in the way fundamentalist Islam teaches. Even among faiths whose teachings could be phrased this way, it is by no means a majority who hold that it is acceptable or desirable to force such submission at the point of a sword, or that people who won't convert should, all else being equal, be killed rather than allowed to live outside the faith, which I would define as the key beliefs that mark a "jihadi".
(I think it's, empirically, entirely possible to be a Muslim without being a jihadi, so I don't mean to be condemning "every Muslim" - though it does require taking certain liberties with the text of the Quran which I don't think any major Muslim authorities would publicly endorse.)
...who just so happen to cover vast swathes of the world population...
We were talking about the goals themselves being evil, you shifted the goalposts to the means of achieving the goals.
I think of "achieve a world in which all infidels have been forcibly converted or killed" as a goal, which armchair jihadis can believe in whether or not they personally do anything violent to bring it about. In any case, I did say that all of this forced-conversion stuff was simply the cherry on top of much of shariah law already being evil, ie all the misogyny and killing and corporal punishment.
The goal is "everyone has converted", you are still mixing the how with the what.
You also said that "slavery to a supernatural being" is evil, and that straightforwardly condemns the entirety of Islam, and all the Abrahamic faiths. You tried to backtrack from that by shifting back to jihadist tactics again.
Define "converted". I think jihadis are generally gunning for a world where infidels are made to mouth along to Muslim prayers and follow shariah law; I don't think most actually care whether the infidels come to really, truly accept Allah into their innermost hearts, or at least, even if they think that on the margin this would be preferable to forced worship, I don't think they expect to ever get that far. Thus the goal qua desired-endgame-worldstate is "a world in which some people are forced to worship against their will", which is an evil thing to want regardless of how you get there. Perhaps our disagreement stems from my thinking of the "goal" as the "once you reach this step, stop" endpoint in the decision tree, while you restrict the "goal" to "the specific features of that worldstate that make it desirable"?
Effective altruist steelman for conversion by sword is:
Yes, some unbelievers will submit only outwardly, only mouth the correct voices while persisting in unbelief for the rest of their lives, and then depart straight to hell fire. This is unfortunate, but their descendants will be raised in true religion and become true believers. Suffering of the last generation of infidels will be way, way outweighed by bliss of all future generations that will come after them.
More options
Context Copy link
That you start believing the tenets of their faith, if you don't already.
Well, if I get to call a group evil based on what I think they want, there's even less reason to go easy on the environmentalists.
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