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 -
It sure might, given solely the perspective of two adults talking to each other. However, Orders of Protection/Restraining Orders have a place in law and a history of being ruled constitutional. Something as simple as a heated conversation between an abused woman and her abuser in the supermarket can trigger law enforcement actions; there, the imbalance of power is obvious, and thus the interest of the government.
It’s not as obvious that an atheist, chief of an atheist organization, armed with a Gish gallop of Biblical imperfections, contradictions, and fantastical elements, is a danger to congregants of my church. While our congregation’s various teaching leaders do attempt to prepare the flock for the slings and arrows of the enemy, these are mostly people who aren’t primarily in the faith because of the philosophical grounding and theological intricacies of their faith tradition. (I’m a rare exception.) Some are people who came out of drug or abuse environments, others were raised by their families in a community of people (smaller than the Dunbar number) always willing to help each other. Some enjoy the songs and potlucks, others enjoy being around other people who have “cooperate” and “forgive” as their social defaults.
They thought they were being invited to “talk about their faith” over lunch or coffee, but they were ambushed by a well-prepared inverse evangelist seeking to find the root of their faith and uproot it, in an environment away from the leaders they trust with their emotional life and who they could turn to for answers to the conundrums he posed. (Keep in mind, this was a time when we couldn’t search the Internet in our pockets at a finger’s flick.) Their consent was obtained by deception, and that was enough for the situation to be considered harassment.
I stand by my claim that the government restraining this sort of thing at the behest of a third party is blatantly unconstitutional, and only accepted because of a friendly judge.
I assume his nuisance harassment on private property, which escalated to our board-recognized authority figure requesting he leave our property due to unwelcome trespassing, was the foundation of anything which followed.
I’m not privy to the details or the document, but that, at least, should constitute grounds for a restraining order for harassment of our members whether we’re a church, a private nonprofit shooting range, or a Toastmasters speech club. But it did spur us to have an official member list so that we could, for example, be listed in a restraining order as a class.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I really doubt you can get restraining order against meeting whole class of hundreds of people, most of them you never met.
Most probably, the lawyer talked with this asshole, reminded him of possibility of legal action and it was sufficient to shut him down.
(the whole situation is surreal, what is the point of leaving Christianity and then doubling down on most stereotypically obnoxious Christian behavior - unwanted preaching, evangelizing and missionizing)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link