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 -
For one, he is insisting on a non-central and offensive characterization of the religion. Christianity is to “Jewish guy’s apocalyptic cult” as “Bay Area EA” is to “Atheistic Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy”; I think Scott would realize why the latter might offend. It betrays a poor theory of mind to think a Christian would actually believe that this characterizes his religion. Labeling Jesus’ evangelism to prostitutes “consorting with prostitutes” is like calling Aella an international human trafficker of vulnerable women. Calling his critics Pontius Pilate is like a Christian calling EA a Sanhedrin of Christ-Killers.
It’s hard to see a charitable way to extract rhetorical force from his post. If the post instead said like, “ Oh, you're worried about a group of people who want to distribute money to those who need it […] you’re scandalized by a fellowship of individuals who want to help the poor […] you are offended by an absolute moral obligation to neighbor”, or something, then this would have some rhetorical force, as this similar to a central-ish characterization of Christ’s message. It would still be a little weird though, because not even saints liken themselves in importance to Christ with such chutzpah, so the Pilate part is best left out no matter what
More options
Context Copy link