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 -
On average, I don’t think trads are that down for joking about 13/52. Nor do I think they’re pro-racial profiling. And not only do modern trads not reject blank slatism, they’re broadly pro-blank slatism (except for “too obvious” cases like Down syndrome).
Agreed that trads wouldn’t have it in them to bar any gates or sink any ships in a Camp of the Saints-type situation. They’d rather lose gracefully than risk being mean to Vulnerable Groups. They may even bend the knee and metaphorically or literally wash the feet of migrants upon arrival. This wouldn’t expose them as LARPers, though, as they’ve been consistent in being progressives driving the speed limit all along.
I don't think this analysis really checks out; "trads" and "conservatives" are not the same group, and the latter are the ones it's reasonable to pose as "progressives driving the speed limit". Best I can tell, trads are generally opposed to racism, but pretty good at noticing when people are fucking with them with false accusations of racism, except in cases that are especially dimwitted and easy for progressives to peel off by any number of tactics. Some of their number predictably die in overseas mission trips or doing other charity work, so they do have to have some "suicidal empathy". However, it's often said that progressives support policies that let dangerous criminals into the country, but wouldn't personally invite them into their homes; I think trads are basically exactly the converse. They aren't generally Amish-style absolute pacifists, and it's pretty easy to whip them up into a nationalist fervor by posing things as a cultural and religious war.
"Trads," as used to describe the religious right as @meduka was doing, are generally considered a subset of conservatives. And while they may not drive at the exact same speed or always on the same roads as other conservatives, I still contend they're progressives driving the speed limit. This can be seen in instances like you mentioned, suicidal empathy or pathological altruism in overseas mission trips or other charity work at considerable personal time and expense, up to and including death.
This type of Noticing may be present among Online RETVRN types (who would likely fall under "'alt-right' NRx folk" or a spiritual offshoot thereof), but generally absent from the religious right. It wasn't the Online RETVRN types who were bending the knee to wash black people's feet during BLM. In general, the knees of the modern religious right bend easily, as can be seen with gay marriage.
I don't think trads oppose policies that let dangerous criminals into the country, insofar a disproportionate amount of dangerous criminals are the byproduct of letting in migrants from the Global South, and being kind and welcoming to migrants (regardless of their ethnic or regional origins) are part of being a good Christian/Catholic. For example, the two most recent popes are/were oft-quoted in simping for migrants/illegal immigrants.
I've seen/heard relatively little pushback from TradCaths in discussions about the popes' water-carrying for migrants/illegal immigrants, although TradCaths should supposedly be quite down for criticizing the pope for being too ${CurrentYear}. In contrast, I've seen/heard much more spirited participation from TradCaths in discussions about abortion or transsexuality. Stronger opinions in discussions on the popes' water-carrying for migrants/illegal immigrants instead come from the "'alt-right' NRx"-types and progressives, the former lulzing and/or seething ("with Christ-cuck allies like these, who needs enemies?") and the latter dabbing/gloating ("see? Even your pap-daddy in the Vatican says that no human is illegal").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link