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 -
"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. The knees of the modern religious right bend easily, as was the case 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 about 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").
TradCaths are willing to criticise the Pope for deviating from Catholicism. They aren't willing to criticise the Pope for deviating from secular conservatism. The idea that the Christian thing to do can be determined by considering secular conservative political theory is pretty much exclusive to American evangelicals.
Christianity is a universalising religion. You are going to struggle to get a Christian to endorse "Now the Good Samaritan has come to the attention of the authorities, time to deport him back to Samaria, ideally after a few weeks in a deliberately squalid prison camp to deter imitators" or "Actually it would have saved the Roman Empire a lot of trouble if the authorities in Roman Egypt had shipped the Holy Family back to King Herod" - even though the latter is probably correct. You can find Biblical prooftexts for "Rulers should do the politically prudent thing, not the WWJD thing" to go along with the usual secular arguments that immigration restriction is prudent. But immigration restriction isn't Christian doctrine. My understanding of modern Catholic teaching is that the only secular political questions which are a matter of doctrine are right-to-life issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link