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 find your comment nonsensical.
You don't consider the bible "literature"?
The elite of both the red and blue tribe are well read, they just read different things and want to be known for reading different things. OP has good examples of blue-tribe reading, so here's some examples of red-tribe coded reading: the Bible, ancient greek plays, Shakepseare, John Locke, Federalist Papers, Heinlein, Tom Clancy, Little House on the Prairy.
There are similarities between the medieval approach to the Bible and literature, but the differences are too significant to usefully classify them together under the same umbrella term. A medieval Christian did not read the Bible for entertainment, but usually heard the text within a solemn (and multisensory) context with the specific aim of learning from God as sole authority. The normal context of digesting the Bible was distinct from that of literature, even among those who were literate, as they engaged in rich devotional activities. Among literate monks who were taught the Bible for the purpose of teaching the masses, the books were analyzed allegorically and tropologically, yet this was always oriented toward something of Christ or the moral life. Symbols in Isaiah were not considered in light of what an author had in mind, but in light of what God was saying about Christ and what Christ was saying about the urgently-important things which a man had to know and believe. There was no interest in discerning whether the text was written well (an early complaint against the Greek gospels was that they were written poorly, and the early church fathers did not disagree). They had no interest in dissecting the structure, plot, character development, authorial intent, milieu, or anything else which characterizes the modern appraisal of literature. The Bible was treated in a contextually and psychologically distinct way, and analyzed in a distinct way, from the modern treatment and analysis of literature. (Modern “Bible study” has a lot more in common with literature. But that’s an aberration from the medieval era. The master masons who built the cathedrals might have never read the Bible and instead kept a devotional book at home, and the monks who commissioned the cathedrals did not read it as literature in the sense in which we we understand the category).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link