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 -
Considering the non Christian societies that exist now don't allow child murder I thin we'll be alright.
The ones that got totally curbstomped by Christian societies intent on enforcing Christian values, and who desperately recast themselves to be more palatable to Christian superpowers?
Yeah, I think if that pressure goes away, so too does the change in behavior. There's some inertia, sure, but there's no such thing as obvious universal human morality that includes such oddities as "don't kill your children" or "rape is wrong" or "everyone should be treated with basic dignity."
Also, plenty of Islamic societies absolutely do allow child murder, especially in cases of e.g. honor killings. Smart governments talk a lot about putting such things behind them, but that's playing to what they perceive as Western sensibilities. You know, like when they say "Jihad just means personal internal struggle, lol" or "These aren't slaves, they're guest workers benefiting from economic opportunity!"
No I think most societies had stopped routine exposure of infants the time of colonization. And places like China never made themselves pliable Western clients and they still don't have it.
There are dozens of independent moral codes that have come up with these rules, you don't need Jesus to ban these. Also when you look at the old Testament God gets pretty flexible on some of these.
And that's fucked up but killing a 15 year old for having premarital sex is an entirely different phenomena then infanticide' and I didn't say no place ever kills children just that I don't think we needed Christianity to end the practice given that o one does it anymore expect maybe some far out hunter gatherers.
This isn't just some line to feed Westerners. It's not like the Gulf Monarchs are pro-Jihad they try to get their own population to by it and work with the CIA to crush Islamists everywhere. And also while Jihad "just" meaning internal struggle is obviously overthrowing your Monarch who rules based on Shariah to implement some kind of theocratic republic or suicide bombing random "infidel" civilians are also pretty novel interpretations has history goes.
I'm not just talking about exposure of infants, and either way I disagree. The New World was absolutely rife with ritual child murder. Exposure was also very common in East Asia and India at time of European contact, especially for girls. Sub-Saharan Africa was ofc its own special hell. So, I'm categorically rejecting this one.
But honor killings are not just applied to teens. Check this case out.
I don't think so; and to the degree that this might technically be true it doesn't matter unless those moral codes were influential enough to stop the practices at scale, which they clearly were not. Where they did exist, they generally applied only to the ingroup. When it comes to rape, well, a lot gets lost in cultural understanding of what that means. But the Christian insistence that the woman must consent to a marriage is probably worth thinking about. And even if, hypothetically, several of these systems could have worked, we may observe that only one actually did.
I think we do. I think even in the West it's becoming a lot more popular without Christianity. Why would I expect non-Westerners to not do it when apparently even we can't manage that?
Because they are personally dependent upon their relationship with the West, yes, obviously. Do you think that rhetoric will hold longer than the very instant it is once again advantageous for them to rile their people up to take territory from the kafir? Has it ever, historically?
It didn't though at least for the period of Colonization. Europeans had huge and horrific slave empires working people to death in Barbados and treating the New World like personal Westworld. Seriously reading some of the conquistadors early antics really reminds me of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Where regardless of how much they follow their own religion "often not very devoutly" they feel free to rape and murder the natives at will because they are godless heathens. Do you really think only Christianity says a women has to consent to marriage? Again there are innumerable marriage practices culturally.
Modern enlightenment philosophy is doing a far better job then Christianity. Though again I'd argue this is more a function of modernity. Despite being subject to almost no Christian influence the Chinese don't expose their infants and women are free to marry who they want.
Except neither Westerners nor non Westerners routinely kill babies anymore.
You misunderstand what I meant, them riling up their people and going to take territory from the Kafir would be entirely inline with historical Jihad. Modern Islamists/Jihadis trying to overthrow Shariah compliant monarchs to implement theocratic republics and blowing up random buses in dar al harb are as far away from historical Jihad as the idea of Jihad only ever meaning peaceful struggle. Historical Jihad was, as you say. It wasn't random extremists taking a ship to Venice and suicidaly hacking down Kaffir with a sword.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link