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 -
[edited this comment significantly to clarify + to remove unnecessary boo outgroup]
Re: “Judaism isn’t a proselytizing religion”, it should be noted that Judaism is an ethno-religion. An ethno-religion that doesn’t convert also runs into some moral quandaries. There’s a big movement in the Jewish World based around Chabad, and according to the foundational text of Chabad, the Tanya, gentiles have a naturally more evil soul and Jews have a soul with a “divine spark”. This is a mainstream lesson at Chabad-friendly synagogues. The religion of Judaism in its more conservative variants is extremist in this sense. “Praying three times a day that apostates have no hope” is also normative, which can be contrasted to the Christian prayer of praying for conversion and enlightenment.
What's the difference with the other monotheistic religions? Thinking others are destined to hell is worse than believing them to be less than a fully formed person. In any case it doesn't matter what people believe, only their actions matter.
Well the big difference between main-line Christianity and the others is that main-line Christianity holds that all people are "fully formed" and capable of being saved, even the ones you don't like. And yes this was a significant point of friction in the early Church which is why Paul and Peter spend a good chunk of the New Testament hammering the point that Jesus did not come to save just the rich or just the Jews he came to save everyone because is it not written that G-d favors and confides in all who fear him.
As for believing that believing someone to be sub-human being normatively worse than believing that they are risking eternal damnation, That's just like your opinion man. I suppose it makes sense from a utilitarian perspective, but the historical track record of such thinking is also a major part of why I believe utilitarianism to be fundamentally evil and incompatible with human flourishing.
You can take your potential universal saveability and shove it. If it is a crime to think me lesser and wrong, it’s not up to you to judge your beliefs, but to me. Else you should bow down before my assessment of utilitarianism. Its universal saveability is far less conditional. Bentham loves you, man.
Thinking someone is lesser is a problem because you are excluding them from baseline considerations about justice and what is right. This is wrong for both metaphysical reasons and practical ones.
Thinking someone is wrong is a necessary consequence of believing in right and wrong. If wrong exists, some people will be wrong. Claiming that thinking others are wrong is a "crime" is a demand for totalitarian enforcement of one's own values.
If Bentham loves me, he has a funny way of showing it. His ideas lead to torture chambers and mass graves.
Yes, obviously. I'm defending freedom of conscience. My position is that thinking of "thinking of others as lesser" as a crime also requires totalitarian enforcement. Firstly, because it requires divining what others are thinking. Secondly, because being wrong is strictly inferior, so those who are wrong are necessarily lesser.
I reject the christian and muslim view of unbelievers as 'lost sheep', potential equals, as a mealy mouthed, patronizing framing. In reality, they damn and demonize them. Mainstreal islam especially, excludes nonbelievers from its idea of justice and morality, and as you say, that is a problem (though for me, only when they act on those beliefs).
Given your stated beliefs, can you honestly argue that " freedom of conscience" is a good thing? If so, How?
Self-evident, really. Promotes liberty and human flourishing, doesn’t result in totalitarianism. Removes the likelihood of conflict by one degree, since beliefs alone are never grounds for conflict, but only overt acts.
You think your beliefs are ‘good’. I disagree, think they’re bad, insulting and unfair to unbelievers. But it doesn’t matter, because I can live in peace with people with bad beliefs, like you or the chabad jews.
Also prevents 30 Years' Wars. You know how they say "every safety rule has a corpse behind it" and suchlike? Freedom of religion is the peace treaty to end a war that depopulated most of Central Europe.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link