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 -
@Corvos for good measure.
Of course I do.
National-level Democratic candidates have campaigned on the idea of taxing churches whose teachings they disagree with.
Virginia Democrat to Introduce Bill to Prosecute Parents Who Refuse to Treat Child as Opposite Sex, plus the coverage of this law in Blue media. California passed a law making acceptance of GAC a factor in custody disputes. Lots of commentary from Blues generally supportive of this idea.
Masterpiece Cake Shop and related cases as a measure of legal tolerance for Christians generally in Blue territory. Conclusion: Blues will coordinate legal consequences for those who do not conform, and the courts are unwilling or unable to make them stop.
Observable trends in application of "hostile work environment" laws in corporate workplaces or the educational system. Where human interaction is most governed by rules, how do the rules actually work?
The FACE act, and the history of its enforcement.
SPLC framing of "Christian Radicals" as a terror nexus > FBI/Law Enforcement scrutiny of communities so labeled > debanking, crackdowns in the corporate/financial sector, with none of this recognized as a problem in any way by Blues.
the Kamloops "graves", the subsequent church burnings, and the reaction to those burnings by officials, the media, and Blue Tribe generally.
COVID lockdowns and how they were applied to churches and to freedom to worship generally, versus Progressive-approved mass gatherings.
More generally, the observable trajectory of first amendment activism, and Progressive attitudes toward dissent generally, and Progressive attitudes toward what I would recognize as actual Christianity. They hate us, and if you think laws or rules will restrain that hate long-term, you are lying to yourself.
More specifically, Christians worshipping in public in Seattle have been repeatedly attacked by antifa, the police have repeatedly declined to intervene, local officials have blamed the Christians for causing the problem through being Christians in public. Local sentiment appears to hold that this is fine, that the Christians should have known better than to intrude. Progressive sentiment nationally doesn't appear to see this as a problem that needs addressing.
Rioting is a well-established Blue Tribe political tactic, codified under the maxim "No Justice, no peace", and has been for decades. Blue officials will withdraw police protection by ordering officers to stand down and let the rioters act as they please. One of the most egregious examples of this was CHAZ, where police stood back and allowed rifle-wielding gunmen to seize control of a neighborhood, threatening and shooting at the locals without interference, for a month straight, only changed their policy when the gunmen actually murdered someone, and explicitly allowed the gunmen to walk away from the murder they committed with zero effort made to apprehend them. Progressives nationwide watched this behavior, and either shrugged uncomfortably or actively defended it.
Reds seems like a reasonable catch-all, but Christians specifically is an obvious point of friction.
More options
Context Copy link