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 -
Largely ignored except in the most cases of the most horrific crimes against humanity? To quote Mallory Archer in the interest of illustrative hyperbole:
I can't take anyone seriously as a political thinker advocating real regime change if they're not intimately familiar with the difference between de-Nazification and de-Baathification. His use of post-war Germany as his measuring stick for how things will look after his Glorious Revolution means that he's either a braindead moron or attempting to covertly signal that he really doesn't mean this entire article. Occam's razor suggests blah blah blah.
Academic Agent is advocating for de-Baathification, which was such a ludicrous and laughable failure on every conceivable metric that anyone seriously advocating for it is obviously retarded, and should be sent to the kids corner with all the rest of the Stormfront reading smoothbrains while the actual adults have a serious conversation.
I’m thinking more of a reverse Maoist revolution. Completely remake the culture, ban the bad stuff and purge those who advocate it from all positions of power. Remove cultural artifacts that promote that same bad stuff. Promote the new culture: traditional families, American traditional culture, Christian ethics, and capitalism. Promote useful education and the study of the Western canon.
i know people like to define christian ethics however they like but jesus in the new testament does not seem to agree with the capitalist mentality:
Jesus's teachings were impractical. Typical millenarian preacher; world is going to end soon, why bother with Gnon-compliance? Focus on making sure you are ready for the next world. Repent! The Kingdom of God is at hand.
Which is why actual Christianity is mostly based on the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. As long as you tithe your 10%, show up to Church once a week, and make a token effort at avoiding sin, you can live a normal life pursuing money and status and still go to heaven.
It's intellectually bankrupt, but it works; whereas a civilization of holy fools would be unsustainable.
I do find it hilarious that this is how people identify the difference between Paul and Jesus, when the very Wikipedia article you linked on becoming a fool for Christ has a section linking the phrase and concepts to Paul’s teachings.
I do find myself wondering how different I would be living were I to separate myself from the world and try to turn more people to Jesus by being a spectacle of His providence, like the Apostles Jesus sent out, owning nothing except the clothes on my back. Yet I remain embedded in the world, attempting occasionally to be salt, adding the flavor of hope where I can. This too is Jesus’ teaching, not Paul’s.
I have worked for a Christian capitalist. His family’s livelihood is tied up in providing low-cost services to the community and employment to his workers, and his goal is to be able to pass on to his children an education to do similarly while maintaining a strong faith like his. He’s one of the few people I’d emulate, were I to attempt a small business of my own.
Most people who push the Jesus-Paul distinction are progressives who accuse Paul of corrupting Jesus's original message. Usually atheists who believe in Jesus the community organizer rather than Jesus the son of God. "Well, he's no Obama or anything, but he was fair for his day; a great moral teacher!"
On the contrary, I applaud Paul for turning Christianity into a viable religion that has stood the test of time for two millennia, something Jesus's original teachings would almost certainly not have done.
Though, to be fair, Jesus avoided the most common failure mode of millenarianism; using the end of the world as an excuse to party (eating the seed corn, slaughtering cattle, abolishing private property and monogamy, etc.)
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