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 -
Is the State a "Civic Church" in terms of jurisdictional power, or am I overreading this?
Guys, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if this fits, but I've been wrestling with the relationship between the State and religion, and I want to run a thought by you.
We all know this Western ideal: separation of church and state. But after years of living it, watching the news and trying to understand the friction, it seems to me that you don’t get constant, systemic conflict unless two powers are fighting over the exact same piece of "real estate." And that "real estate" is moral authority.
Here is the nuance I want to add, because I know the counter-argument: "The State doesn't care what you believe in your heart; it only cares about public compliance." I grant that completely.
But here is where the jurisdictional land-grab happens: The State doesn't just say, "We have a separate rule for public conduct." It says, "Your religious rule is invalid inside your own institutions, and you must comply with our civic moral code—even when operating your own schools, charities, and hospitals." That isn't two sovereigns coexisting; that is the State asserting ultimate supremacy over religious bodies.
Now, I agree that politicians and judges likely aren't malicious. They genuinely believe they are defending "progress," "equality," or "women's rights." They see themselves as liberators from "archaic dogma."
But functionally, aren't they establishing a new civic orthodoxy? The medieval Church defined orthodoxy and punished heterodoxy. The modern State does the same—except the "sin" isn't heresy; it's "discrimination," and the "punishment" is fines, loss of tax-exempt status, or closure.
Let me give a concrete example, carefully: In Europe, it is generally legal to teach your child at home, in private, that homosexuality is a sin according to your faith. However, if you run a state-funded religious school, the State will intervene to compel the curriculum to reflect civic values over religious ones. The State is not policing belief, but it is policing the public expression and institutional enforcement of that belief.
To me, that sounds less like "neutral arbitration" and more like a rival institutional power asserting its dominance over the moral code. I've read that conflict over legal jurisdiction is the academic gold standard for proving institutional rivalry.
So my ultimate question isn't "Is the State a religion?"—because clearly, it lacks the supernatural elements. Rather, my questions are:
"If the State claims ultimate jurisdiction over moral conduct even within religious institutions, does that make it functionally equivalent to an established 'civic church' in terms of political sovereignty? If so, how can religious groups negotiate this without capitulating entirely?
And isn't the State constantly changing its beliefs? By doing so, isn't it effectively admitting that it was wrong before—and that it will likely be wrong again? That makes me doubt whether it even cares about being objectively right at all, or whether it is just running social experiments on us. And if it is just experimenting, then isn't it essentially messing with society however it wants, without caring enough about the long-term consequences—even if its leaders have 'good intentions'? I mean, the society is pretty polrized in many things.
This is overly-wordy ("concrete example, carefully") for a simple topic that has been discussed to death in the Culture War Threads. Here is some additional reading for you, in case you are new to these parts:
There are probably others too, but these are the first that came to mind.
I read both pages.
The first one gives too much credit to gay ideology. It may be destroyed by its own lack of children. Unless people have become more stupid, this can't become a new establishment for long before it gets replaced. That ideology is unsustainable. I do get that this seems to be part of a cycle—countercultural movements take over the state, and elites weaponize new ideologies to control the masses. But the demographic angle is the fatal flaw Alexander ignores.
The second one is quite smart, even if I don't like how religion is portrayed. The author argues that the category of "religion" is a harmful meme that distracts us from real threats. Still, to me it makes more sense to expand the definition of "religion"—recognize that any comprehensive moral order is a religion, whether it has gods or not.
I would support many of Yarvin's ideas, but the problem is that if the elite have no defined morals, they may rule like an oligarchy. We should at least add Porter's Shared Value as a guiding principle—so the state serves society, not just itself.
"Gay ideology" isn't the best name for it, since Feminist values are also anti-natal. Yours is a standard reply, that wokeness will fail because it is low fertility. It isn't so. It doesn't need to breed adherents, it can just convert them. This is trivial if you control education and state. Even if wokeness manages to marginalize high-fertility sub-groups (Amish, Mormons, etc.), they can still import infinite migrants.
Whether you expand the definition of "religion" or discard the word altogether for the more neutral-sounding "ideology" is inconsequential. The "harmful meme" is the distinction, that isolated demand that treats paranormal entities differently than run-of-the-mill moral instruction.
Your "problem" with Yarvin doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying if the elite do have defined morals, then they won't rule like an oligarchy? what does it mean to "rule like an oligarchy?" Your distinction between state and society also doesn't make sense to me -- can you clarify more?
In any case, the rest of Yarvin's ideas (Formalism) are not relevant. That "Belief in Religion" post is more of a companion essay to his longer stuff, just focusing on the theocratic aspects of wokeness under a different name -- we call it something different 20 years ago.
I know "gay ideology" is too narrow, but "anti-natalist" isn't complete either. They're just one strain of a broader selfish ideology.
The more you force an ideology, the more you create resistance. And conversion has limits. If it didn't, the ideology would be even more suicidal. If it changed int something else and rename itself, then it failed.
Churches are empty, but people aren't becoming woke either—they're becoming apathetic or hostile. Also, immigrants from traditional cultures often bring more conservative values than the native population. That strategy can backfire.
They are just one of many selfish ideologiesm and the more you force an ideology, the more you create resistance. The conversion strategy also has limits. If it didn't, it would be even more suicidal. Churches are empty but people aren't becoming woke either. They're becoming apathetic or hostile. Also, immigrants from traditional cultures often bring more conservative values than the native population. The "infinite migrants" strategy can backfire.
I meant that if elites have no fixed moral principles, they rule in their own interest, not the public's. That's essentially an oligarchy. LKY and Xiaoping followed utilitarian principles. Mandela used Ubuntu. Seretse Khama was guided by a strict opposition to corruption. You should already know that today's society believes in money and success as goals—while the happiest people in multiple studies are shown to be the ones who have the best relationships.
Childfree and antinatalist movements are two distinct things with very different vibes.
Childfree are proudly selfish folks, while antinatalists are self sacrificing Boddhisatvas, staying in this hellworld of pain and misery in order to preach their message and prevent future sentient being to be born and suffer.
One is mega consumerist lifestyle pushed Up To Eleven, problematic not only due to maximal carbon footprint while the other is rather more disturbing - well, would be if it was less cringe.
Anyway, the pro natalist movement one upped and overcame anti natalists in cringiness long ago.
Typical natalist discourse now looks like this:
ANTINATALIST: Life is pain and suffering, the best fate is to be never born, but only one out of million could get so lucky. Sad!
PRONATALIST: Yea, life is suffering and this gives it meaning, suffering is awesome! Think about thousands of generations of your ancestors who suffered horribly, so you could be born and suffer too! Be thankful for the gift of suffering and pass it to future generations, you do not want your ancestor's sacrifice be in vain!
edit: links uplinked
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And we already have examples of this that are also very clearly religions- Confucianism and Buddhism. Western thought, as always, tends to be colored by "[everything we hate about/a strawman of/how wrong about everything is] Chrstianity", and then the reactionaries respond with [everything they love about/how right about everything is their version of] Christianity.
So they end up talking past each other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link