site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31539 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 22, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Los Angeles Dodgers, a baseball team are apparently hosting a "pride night" and have invited a group called "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" to perform at it.

The "sisters" are of course not sisters at all, but in fact, an anti catholic group of men who dress as nuns and mock catholics.

Originally the Dodgers, a baseball team, after learning that this was essentially an anti-Catholic hate group, uninvited them. However, they recently re-invited them.

Baseball?

What is the fucking point of this? What possible reason does a baseball team have to indicate a sexual preference? And why does this include mocking Catholics?

God this stuff is demoralizing. Is that the point?

I happened to run into a concert at a minor league field last summer. I’d been walking to dinner and heard distant music, so I wandered that way. It was Jefferson Starship.

Witnessing that was more demoralizing than any culture war advertisement.

You have to expand on that, because I can see too many directions it could be going. Is Jefferson Starship demoralising, or is it the fact they are still performing after 50 years, etc

Is it still the same band? I think they have one original member left, and if it's not Paul Kantner (dead) or Grace Slick (retired), I don't see much point. Same with a lot of these "bands of Theseus" that are still running around with names made famous in that era.

Yeah I feel the same. I don't know why they didn't keep doing that TNG thing they did in the nineties (for those of you who aren't elderly, Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship, which became Jefferson Starship: The Next Generation), that seemed like a neat way to keep some continuity while acknowledging the changing roster.

The latter. Nothing against the band, but it was not a good concert.

I'd think by now they'd be "Jefferson Walker".

Where is your evidence that they are anti-Catholic? You linked to their website, but there is nothing there about Catholicism at all. That is in marked contrast to the websites of actually anti-Catholic groups.

  • -22

Sisters of […] Perpetual

This is a phrase used to describe Catholic Nuns, because of the Roman Catholic title “lady of perpetual hope”

Indulgence

This is a play on the Catholic practice of indulgence. Combined together this is sufficient to prove their malice, but to add another:

Wearing Nun-like vestments

I suppose an inverse example would be if I called myself “the LGBT Queer Alliance”, and my public spectacle was actually St George defeating a rainbow dragon which just happens to be prancing around in rainbow colors. Clearly my intent would be malicious against the LGBT theme.

Yes, it is clear that they are referring to Catholic nuns. No one disputes that. But, contrary to your claim, evidence of malice is missing.

And your hypothetical does not work, because the picture you describe seems to advocate for the destruction of LGBTQ people or organizations (I have no idea what it means to be malicious "against a theme."). Were there evidence of the group advocating the destruction of Catholicism, or taxing churches, or telling people not to send their kids to Catholic schools, or even complaining about ostensibly homophobic Church teachings, you might have a case. But I don't see any such evidence.

  • -15

Right so if I made a dance troupe called The Bugchasing Rock Spiders, and they were good dancers and singers and occasionally made innuendo about wanting to bang your small children, that would not reflect any malice?

Also note that I made this group 50 years ago and due to an explosion in homophobia over the past decade business has boomed and we have acquired major corporate sponsorships requiring we sanitise our image to some extent, so now the innuendo is restricted to tweens and older.

So what if my example were instead colorful LGBT people in sackcloth and ashes, begging repentance from a nun on their knees, and then it finally being granted? This is the traditional liturgy of Catholicism, much like the liturgy of transvestites is dancing with a lot of colorful clothing. The above liturgy is “nuns -> actually dancing transvestites”. What if we did “transvestites -> actually repentant sinners”? If it leaves an inexplicable bad taste in your mouth, then there is probably a moral residue, based around such nebulous (yet significant) concepts like “respecting a group’s symbology and name”.

? What message is that skit supposed to be sending? Wouldn't that simply be a claim that being LGBT is not a sin, or is a forgivable one*? How is it saying anything negative about Catholicism at all?

*Which, btw, if I am not mistaken, is consistent with current Catholic doctrine.

Five days ago you said

they aren't just a gay rights group, but clearly ridicule Catholicism.

@naraburns @desolation This might be helpful context for your discussions.

I said that based on what I remember from reading about them 30+ years ago when they were in the news fairly often in the Bay Area, and before I looked at their website and saw nothing re Catholicism at all. I was mistaken; now I am pretty sure that they are just being juvenile. Or that they have changed over time (it was initially something like 4 guys; now it is a 503(c).

Where is your evidence that they are anti-Catholic? You linked to their website

I'm guessing you didn't notice the non-underlined space in-between "and" and "mock"? The "mock catholics" link is to video of a man pole-dancing on a crucifix.

You are correct that I did not see the gap. But, is the video actually about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? I think I see one "nun" in the background watching but I don't see any participating in the performance. And 2) what exactly is anti-Catholic about sexualizing Jesus? If I said, "I want to fuck Jesus," I am sure that some Catholics would be offended. But how is that statement anti-Catholic? As opposed to expressing an idea that disagrees with Catholic doctrine?

  • -22

You really think that statement is a simple theological disagreement? It doesn't just disagree with Catholic doctrine, it mocks it. This is obvious.

if so, so what? How does "mocking" an idea somehow become more "anti-Catholic" than criticizing it? And, tell me, what exactly does "anti-Catholic" mean? Surely, if it is objectionable, then it must mean something more than mocking ideas; it must mean saying something negative about people. That is what anti-Semitism is, right? It is not simply a statement that certain doctrines of Judaism are wrong; it is a statement that something is wrong with Jewish people. Ditto re racist statements, and homophobic statements, and sexist statements, etc.

  • -17

Is smearing bacon on a Quran islamophobic?

How does "mocking" an idea somehow become more "anti-Catholic" than criticizing it? And, tell me, what exactly does "anti-Catholic" mean? Surely, if it is objectionable, then it must mean something more than mocking ideas; it must mean saying something negative about people.

By your reasoning here, an outright racial slur is not anti-(a race).

I don't understand. Isn't a racial slur saying something negative about people? That is certainly my understanding.

A racial slur is negative in the same way that mocking is saying something negative. I don't know a coherent standard for "saying something negative" that would let you count one and not the other.

More comments

I'm going down the list of slurs in my head, and can't think of a single one that says a specific negative thing about anybody. They're just another way if saying someone is black/Jewish/gay/etc.

More comments

Surely, if it is objectionable, then it must mean something more than mocking ideas; it must mean saying something negative about people. That is what anti-Semitism is, right? It is not simply a statement that certain doctrines of Judaism are wrong; it is a statement that something is wrong with Jewish people.

There are certain beliefs and practices so strongly tied to a group's identity that to mock the belief/practice and to mock the group of people is one and the same.

And is this one of those cases? Because, again, all they seem to do is dress as nuns.

The original usage of "anti catholic" in this thread referred simply to a group created solely to mock a group of Catholics. This is hardly pro-Catholic, is it? I think you are attempting to make the phrase "anti Catholic" both stronger and more specific than it really is in order to say that that usage of the phrase was incorrect.

More comments

But being "worse" is a claim about degree, not about kind.

Because it's an idea that disagrees with Catholic doctrine and not only is it expressed in a very rude and aggressive way, but that aspect is tied to why you'd want to say it in the first place. There's a reason why it would be nothing more than a weak joke to say "I find Jesus sexually attractive", and why nobody would actually say that.

I don't for one moment buy that a man pole dancing on a crucifix is just a disagreement with doctrine. The whole reason for doing it is that Catholics don't like them doing it. I'm not even sure what doctrine they're purportedly expressing.

I'm not even sure what doctrine they're purportedly expressing.

  1. If you don't know what they are trying to say, then how are you so sure it is anti-Catholic

  2. Why anti-Catholic, as opposed to anti-Protestant or anti-Eastern Orthodox?

  3. Most importantly, let's not forget that there is no reason to think that the performance is actually by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The evidence therefor seems to be zero.

  • -10

If you don't know what they are trying to say, then how are you so sure it is anti-Catholic

I know what they are trying to say, but what they are trying to say doesn't include nontrivial objections to doctrine.

Why anti-Catholic, as opposed to anti-Protestant or anti-Eastern Orthodox?

Assuming the "nuns" are involved, nuns are associated in the popular consciousness with Catholics. It doesn't matter for these purposes that some other groups also have nuns.

what they are trying to say doesn't include nontrivial objections to doctrine.

Can you link to the group commenting on any doctrine, trivial or otherwise?

Assuming the "nuns" are involved

I was referring to the linked video of the pole dancing, which does not include nuns.

Can you link to the group commenting on any doctrine, trivial or otherwise?

To be fair, they are trivially commenting on doctrine, so I shouldn't have said that they're not commenting on doctrine at all. "Catholics think it's bad to show nuns and Jesus in a sexual context" is, technically a doctrine, and by deliberately doing that anyway, they are trivially commenting that they disagree with it. I wouldn't count that, of course, as nontrivially commenting on it.

what they are trying to say doesn't include nontrivial objections to doctrine.

Can you link to the group commenting on any doctrine, trivial or otherwise?

I don't believe they are commenting on doctrine, so of course I can't link to examples of them doing what I just said they aren't doing.

You can mock X and be anti-X without commenting on X's doctrine at all.

If you don't know what they are trying to say, then how are you so sure it is anti-Catholic

Jiro does know what they're trying to say; they're trying to mock Catholics. The point was not "the meaning to this behavior is unclear" but rather "the meaning to this behavior would be unclear were your point correct".

deleted

It is one of the many small differences between Protestants and Catholics. Raised Protestant, I was told those evil Catholics were wrong to have a crucifix (instead of just a cross) because Jesus was no longer on the cross.

deleted

More comments

You linked to their website, but there is nothing there about Catholicism at all.

...you don't think a panoply of wildly caricatured Catholic nuns is about Catholicism "at all?"

About? At all? Yes. But anti? No, not per se. There are a thousand reasons to dress in drag as a nun other than being anti-Catholic. To criticize certain Catholic doctrines re homosexuality. To push back on political efforts by organized religion (a big deal in 1979). Or just to be ironic, given that nuns are meant to be chaste.

And, btw, one can criticize the Catholic Church (an enormously powerful institution) without criticizing either Catholics or Catholicism.

  • -24

So would you agree that blackface is not "anti-black" per se? Do you believe that caricatures of Jews are not "anti-Semitic" per se?

There are a thousand reasons to dress in drag as a nun other than being anti-Catholic. To criticize certain Catholic doctrines re homosexuality.

Er... maybe we have different ideas about what it means to be "anti-Catholic," but criticizing Catholic doctrines of homosexuality sounds paradigmatically "anti-Catholic" to me. Pushing back on political efforts by the Catholic church seems "anti-Catholic," especially given the Church's long political history.

And, btw, one can criticize the Catholic Church (an enormously powerful institution) without criticizing either Catholics or Catholicism.

Catholics, maybe, but Catholicism? This seems like splitting hairs incredibly fine, to the point of suggesting a motte and bailey doctrine at play. Mockery has long been a highly effective approach to criticism, and criticism is not pro-, it is anti-.

"You can keep your Catholicism, we're just going to level your Church, caricature your symbols, mock your practices--no, we're not anti-Catholic per se, don't be ridiculous!"

That seems implausible to me.

Being Catholic is a choice in a way that being black or ethnic Jewish is not. Hence making fun of blacks or ethnic Jews for being blacks or ethnic Jews is more mean spirited than making fun of Catholics for being Catholics.

There is a difference of quality between, for example, making fun of a person for thinking that the Earth is flat and making fun of a person because he belongs to a certain ethnic group. Both are mean spirited, but the former is at least potentially part of some kind of meaningful debate, whereas the latter leads nowhere except to divisiveness.

  • -15

Being Catholic is a choice in a way that being black or ethnic Jewish is not.

No, it's not. There's a difference but it's much smaller than people imagine. Is being "atheist" a choice? People don't choose their convictions the same way they choose their clothes. I'm a Christian. Sometimes I wished I weren't, because Christianity is very demanding and because it's low status among my peers. But I'm convinced of its truth for the time being, so whether I like it or not I remain Christian.

Choice or not a choice, 'round these parts, atheism is what Robin Hanson calls the "sacred".

So would you agree that blackface is not "anti-black" per se?

Yes. The traditional minstrel shows, as I understand it, depicted black people as stupid or foolish etc. But I don't know that that is true of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer (though I have never seen the whole movie, so I might be mistaken). Nor it is true of 99% of people who dress in "blackface" nowadays, to play homage to Michael Jackson or whomever.

criticizing Catholic doctrines of homosexuality sounds paradigmatically "anti-Catholic" to me. Pushing back on political efforts by the Catholic church seems "anti-Catholic," especially given the Church's long political history.

Then, you really do have an odd definition of "anti-Catholic." The Mormon Church used to teach that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain and/or Ham; were those who criticized those doctrines therefore "anti-Mormon"? I don't see how.

Catholics, maybe, but Catholicism? This seems like splitting hairs incredibly fine

Isn't that exactly what Martin Luther did? He criticized the Church, but not the religion.

"You can keep your Catholicism, we're just going to level your Church, caricature your symbols, mock your practices--no, we're not anti-Catholic per se, don't be ridiculous!" That seems implausible to me.

I can see how one might assume that initially. But, if one looked at the website of the organization in question, and saw zero references to Catholicism there, I would think that one would update one's beliefs.

But I don't know that that is true of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer (though I have never seen the whole movie, so I might be mistaken).

He is respectful all the way through. But I am confused by your confusion on this issue - everyone else in this thread is applying what progressive dogma has demanded for the past decade - if someone in the target group is offended, it's offensive. I don't care enough to go through your history, but I am fairly certain you understood this concept previously.

I have never supported that argument in the least. Among other things, it is contrary to basic principles of freedom of expression.

I didn't say you supported it, I said you understood it.

More comments

Then, you really do have an odd definition of "anti-Catholic." The Mormon Church used to teach that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain and/or Ham; were those who criticized those doctrines therefore "anti-Mormon"? I don't see how.

It seems like a pretty common belief in the history of Christianity generally, but yes--I have a hard time imagining someone discussing the racist history of Christianity in a way that is pro-Christianity. Perhaps it could be discussed neutrally, as a mere historical curiosity, but you yourself identify these transvestites as doing something to "clearly ridicule Catholicism," and ridicule is not a neutral act. So you're either being disingenuous now, or you are maintaining an untenable distinction between ridiculing something and being "anti-" that thing. And like, if that's really how you're splitting the hair, okay, but it seems a little absurd to me.

Catholics, maybe, but Catholicism? This seems like splitting hairs incredibly fine

Isn't that exactly what Martin Luther did? He criticized the Church, but not the religion.

To the best of my understanding, his maintenance that there even is a difference was itself anti-Catholic, and history (specifically, the existence of Lutheranism as a competitor meme) seems to bear that out. But I'm not a theologian, so.

But, if one looked at the website of the organization in question, and saw zero references to Catholicism there, I would think that one would update one's beliefs.

Except you yourself already allowed that there is not "zero references" to Catholicism at that website, owing to the caricatured Catholic nuns. This substantially increases my suspicion that you are, in fact, just trolling.

I think the interlocutor is disingenuous but extending charity one explanation could be that the interlocutor has the progressive belief that being anti-X means you hate X.

So for example Mormons teach a lot of things that are wrong. In that way, I’m anti-Mormon because I don’t think it is true. But that doesn’t mean I hate Mormons; it just means I think they are wrong.

But how I go about being anti-Mormon could suggest hatred. If I made a public display of mocking their sacred symbols with an intent to distress them then it is reasonable for me to be described as hateful towards them.

This group is clearly hateful toward Catholics.

"have a hard time imagining someone discussing the racist history of Christianity in a way that is pro-Christianity."

Are there really only two possibilities? Being either pro- or anti- ? Eg, I am not pro- religion, but neither am I anti-religion in the manner of Richard Dawkins,et al.

Except you yourself already allowed that there is not "zero references" to Catholicism at that website, owing to the caricatured Catholic nuns

That simply restates the initial claim that the mere fact that they dress as nuns is proof that they are "anti-Catholic." If a group that simply does that, and does not in any other way even mention Catholicism, or the Church, is "anti-Catholic," then with enemies like that, apparently the Church doesn't need friends.

Y’all are fighting over semantics. Taboo the phrase “anti-Catholic.” Which of the following propositions do you believe?

  1. Some of the Sisters’ beliefs are not compatible with Christian theology.

  2. The Sisters are mocking Catholic religious practices.

  3. The Sisters are mocking political positions held mainly by Christians.

  4. The Sisters are mocking political positions held by Catholics, but not most other Christians.

  5. The Sisters would like to diminish the political power of Christians in general.

  6. The Sisters would like to diminish the political power of Catholics more than other Christians.

  7. The Sisters would like to actively persecute Catholics via ostracization or violence.

  8. The mockery as per 3. already rises to the level of active persecution.

@naraburns, what about you?

I think 1, 2, 3 and 5 are true, but the rest are not. The Sisters are attacking Catholicism for its brand and availability more than out of any specific enmity. Thus I’d be more likely to call them anti-Christian than specifically anti-Catholic, even though they are clearly mocking Catholics.

More comments

Well, I happen to work in the free speech arena, specifically re K-12 schools. So I deal a lot with book challenges. And I can tell you that the common claim that challenges to books with LGBTQ themes are the result of homophobia are bullshit, because the vast, vast majority of said books are challenged because they have racy scenes or depictions.

So, my answer is yes.

And, btw, I do not think that asking for actual evidence is shoving camels through needles.

That example isn't of somebody being against homosexuality but not homophobic, though. It's not an example of them being against homosexuality at all, just against books with racy scenes being in schools.

OP asked, "Every time someone's accused of homophobia, are you going to step in and shove a camel through the eye of a needle like this?" The example I gave is about people being accused of homophobia, and my response thereto.

Ah, makes sense. I thought you were replying to the first question.

More comments

Sports teams host all kinds of “nights” from gay pride to the military to first responders /teachers to Star Wars. The point is to sell tickets and increase the value of the brand.

I've believed for some time that Christianity is dead. There are Christian ideas that are floating around and are very strong. But where are the zealots for Christianity itself? Hardmode: where are the zealots outside Sub-Saharan Africa (where the church is not so LGBT-friendly).

If they tried this sort of thing with Islam, they'd be dealt with pretty quickly. The followers of Allah do not tolerate open insults.

If Christians typically went out and executed people for mocking Christ, that would indicate that Christianity is dead.

Christianity was pretty strong in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, when enormous numbers of people were being killed or tortured in religious wars (between Christians or with other faiths). What would happen if the Sisters showed up in pre-18th century Europe? They'd be lucky to reach prison alive.

The last person hanged for blasphemy in Great Britain was Thomas Aikenhead aged 20, in Scotland in 1697. He was prosecuted for denying the veracity of the Old Testament and the legitimacy of Christ's miracles.

The more people care about something, the stronger it is.

Well it's an interesting question -- is there any sort of intrinsic character to Christianity, or is 'Christianity' whatever people do while declaring themselves 'Christian'?

Can a group like Antifa call themselves "The Anti-Bad Guy Squad" and thereby make all their actions good?

There are so many ways you can interpret the Bible that any action can be defended as Christian. You'd think idolatry and polytheism would be off-limits but my former Catholic church decided to celebrate the Indian festival of Divali, for no comprehensible reason other than that there were a fair few Indians around. Christians can go all the way from pacifism to holy war, tolerance or destruction of evil (however it's defined).

Or, Christianity is defined by the Orthodox Church, which also limits how the Bible is to be interpreted, and all else is Christian heresy.

We are coming at this from different perspectives and common ground seems unlikely.

Thanks for the conversation.

The Orthodox Church (Roman or Eastern?) also took active part in quite a lot of that killing and torturing that RandomRanger mentioned above, though. If His Holiness the Bishop of Rome is the one who decides who does and does not count as a Christian, for example, I don't think you then get to claim that Innocent III o Julius II does not qualify as one.

Eastern.

More comments

What's the Evangelical/Fundamentalist take on this whole situation? On the one hand, they're pretty against mocking Jesus, and are heavily waging culture war. On the other hand, they're not exactly pro-Catholics. I'm assuming in this situation the former will take precedence over the latter, especially as it can be used for sermons to rile up the base.

If I am between one side that believes men can become women by taking drugs and doing surgery and another side that believes a guy 2000 years ago walked on water and rose from the dead... well, I will be happy not being on either side.

What is the fucking point of this?

With 81 home games a season most teams have 20+ dud games a year (when team unlikely to be in contention of the post season is playing another cellar dwellers from outside the division who have little to no national fan base on a potentially cold Tuesday night). Pride nights are a way to market dud games by turning them into an event that attracts lots of groups, just like Christian concert nights that get marketed to church groups, firework shows after the game, or bobblehead days. You sell cheap group rate tickets in the nosebleeds so the stands look fulliish on TV and the concession stands don't riot about having another night with under 5,000 attendence.

Normally, they keep the marketing focused (because they need to feed from both sides in most cities) and try not to do anything that has too much potential to resemble disco demolition night too much.

The rest is just the winning side in the culture war rubbing the losing side's face in their loss.

Every once in a while we get these "Look, your side scored a point, it's not true that the game is rigged!" posts, and inevitably half the time all you have to do is wait a week for the whole thing to be overturned.

God this stuff is demoralizing. Is that the point?

Yes, but at this point if you have any lingering investment in the system and it's culture, you only have yourself to blame. The only way out is recognizing you're under hostile occupation, and acting accordingly.

Maybe, but I hope people realize that there are still many people in the United States who think that they are under hostile occupation by conservative Christians and have good reason to think so. The typical TheMotte commenter, I think, has lived in liberal urban areas for most of his life and does not realize that oppressive conservative Christianity is still a force to be reckoned with in some parts of the country. I think that the kind of people who enjoy mocking Christianity are probably disproportionately drawn from people who escaped such oppressive environments when they were young, much as many of the most fervent anti-communists are people who escaped communist regimes.

I took would like more examples of "hostile occupation of conservate Christians." I agree with FC that this just sounds like people being mad that their parents raised them in a religious tradition that they no longer believe in (likely because mass media and public education converted them to a rival religious tradition).

"Hostile occupation" sounds to me more like Francoist Spain where you needed letters of recommendation from your parish priest for a government position, or where the school curriculum is designed and monitored by the Church, or where major retailers wouldn't even consider a "Pride Month display" for fear of boycotts or falling afoul of the law.

Conservative parts of America have Pride displays at big box and book stores, their school curriculums are implemented by a body of teachers who are as a group quite woke, and although you don't yet need a letter vouching for your good character from your local DEIB commissar, if enough people learn that you're a heretic who opposes woke teachings you will be blacklisted from many government institutions and powerful corporations.

Given the above I have a really hard taking people seriously when they claim to have escaped a conservative hellhole because their parents made them go to church on Sunday and disapproved of their gender identity and oh yeah one time at a bar a drunk guy called them a faggot.

Growing up in a hardcore Jehovah's Witnesses family is very different from just "parents raised them in a religious tradition that they no longer believe in". The Jehovah's Witnesses are essentially a cult. I do not think that they represent Christianity in general but even if such cults are only say 5% of all American Christianity, that still means several million people who grew up in such environments.

Maybe, but I hope people realize that there are still many people in the United States who think that they are under hostile occupation by conservative Christians and have good reason to think so.

What does "hostile occupation by conservative Christians" look like in practice, in the year 2023?

For example, I know a person who grew up in a Jehovah's Witnesses family and was forbidden from having any friends who were not JW. I think this upbringing was seriously psychologically damaging.

That is an extreme case, but keep in mind that even if say only 5% of American households are hardcore conservative Christian, that would mean 16 million people growing up in hardcore conservative Christian families. Some people from such families flee to liberal urban areas as soon as they can, and I think that they tend to be among the most vocal anti-Christians.

For example, I know a person who grew up in a Jehovah's Witnesses family and was forbidden from having any friends who were not JW. I think this upbringing was seriously psychologically damaging.

Do you have any examples where the "hostile occupation" is not, one way or another, one's own parents? Like, unrelated Christians will beat you in the street, destroy your property, or make a credible effort to get you fired from your job for being visibly non-Christian?

In that person's case, it was not just the parents. There was an extended community that, from what I understand, either dominated or at least had significant influence in the town where the person grew up.

The example you gave doesn't prove what you are saying. Jehovah's witnesses are non-political and are internally barred from holding any public office. They don't even vote. They have no influence on any town in the world.

What did this domination or significant influence look like in practice, how many people did it effect, and to what degree was it avoidable by personal choice?

I don't doubt that the people you're describing exist, or even that their concerns are important on at least some level. But if I said that the number of people "who think that they are under hostile occupation by woke Progressivism and have good reason to think so" is an order of magnitude or two larger, would you think that was a reasonable statement?

What did this domination or significant influence look like in practice

A tight-knit group of families all part of the JW, all controlling their kids together.

how many people did it effect

I don't know the numbers, but effectively everyone that this person was allowed to interact with.

to what degree was it avoidable by personal choice?

Given that the person was a minor and economically dependent on the family, little.

same underlying reason they released trevor bauer

the dodger front office is one of the better in MLB at developing talent, past that they have the money to sign any top free agent to cover deficiencies

dodger ownership, guggenheim, they run a brand. they sell a product. their product is valued in the money generated from tickets and concessions, from ads and merch, and that's because of baseball and success in baseball, but to them it's incidental, they don't care about baseball. most MLB owners don't anymore, but guggenheim is the worst offender.

dodger marketing felt it would negatively impact their brand to keep bauer and it felt it would negatively impact the brand to not acquiesce here. that the overwhelming majority of people complaining in both cases are not people they get money from is, i don't know, depressingly, grossly, peculiarly, exactly why they did it. it's somewhat self-fulfilling, the dodgers are a strong enough brand and baseball viewership is conservative enough they didn't actually have anything to worry about, but they have correctly appraised their brand in knowing any antiestablishment association would over time be more trouble than it's worth.

i don't give a shit about pride night. bill veeck was great for baseball and he'd have leapt at a pride night if for some reason it were on the table in the 60s and 70s. he'd have played both sides like a fiddle to get people in the stadium because he loved the sport and wanted people to watch. sure the money was nice, but the money wasn't the goal in itself. money is the only thing most owners care about now and baseball is worsening by the year because of it. manfred runner, pitch clock, rules on mound visits and pitching changes. the fucking atrocity of a playoff structure. if the worst sin dodger ownership committed these last few years was that of taste in inviting the sisters of perpetually beating a dead horse to 1 game, baseball would be in a lot better shape.

they don't care about baseball. most MLB owners don't anymore, but guggenheim is the worst offender.

How can you possibly know that?

money is the only thing most owners care about now and baseball is worsening by the year because of it. manfred runner, pitch clock, rules on mound visits and pitching changes. the fucking atrocity of a playoff structure.

I certainly agree on the Manfred runner and the playoffs (wild cards? Give a break), but the other changes have cut 1/2 hour off average game times, which previously averaging over 3 hours. That's a good thing.

How can you possibly know that?

a better way to phrase this could have been "What makes you say that?"

the dodgers are the only team in MLB owned by a hedge fund, guggenheim partners. "guggenheim baseball management" is a legal contrivance, a result of MLB's requirement that teams have a single person hold ultimate decisionmaking authority. guggenheim partners led the acquisition in 2012, then to adhere to MLB requirements to complete it they created GBM. partners' CEO mark walter is the nominal owner of the dodgers but the dodgers remain an asset effectively owned by a hedge fund. or a "hedge fund plus" since guggenheim does more on top of "normal" hedge fund things. even putting aside the inherent soullessness of being owned by a hedge fund, their backing puts a chasm between their ability to spend against the next highest. the yankees were hated for that under boss steinbrenner but they at least have a real legacy; the only reason we're talking about the dodgers is the "los angeles" in front.

as for game time, all MLB needed to do to speed up games was have umps be strict about enforcing rules already on the books. a pitch clock is kind of supported by that, but the problem i have with it is the mentality. first, it's rich to hear manfred and the owners say "fans want a faster game" when TV ad breaks are the biggest factor slowing games. second, fans want a faster game because they've been conditioned to have a sense of urgency about a game whose entire point is its pointlessness. playoffs are everything now, it didn't use to be this way. the fall classic was the last celebration of the season, not the point of the season. in baseball's greatest eras people were packing stadiums of teams that had no shot at the pennant. they weren't there to feed avarice, they were there to pass time watching summer's mandala.

I think baseball has issues well beyond the things the rules are trying to fix.

1). It’s really prohibitively expensive to attend games in person. Taking a family of four to a ballgame, buying each person a snack and a beverage is easily $100. Which means first of all, most parents, unless they’re well-off or their child is super into the game, don’t take the kids. This means that you’re cutting off the next generation of potential fans who will likely never see a player in person.

2). Most games are no longer on basic streaming plans. I’m a fan of my cards, but in my area, you need to have the tier above basic on my cable provider or get a separate service (Fubo) if you want to see the game live. This makes accidental discovery of a game on TV harder, as you need to go out of your way to watch it. Again, this cuts down on children discovering they like the game.

3). Like most sports, there are simply too many teams and too many games, such that the majority of games and teams are irrelevant to the season. You can be under 0.500 at the all-star break and still get a wildcard slot. The season goes from mid February to mid October, nearly 200 games. And the large number of teams makes it impossible to keep up with the players on any teams other than your own or close rivals. There’s just no feeling that the game you’re watching matters or that you’re watching star player at their best. There’s not even a sense of rivalry as the players are unknown, and they switch teams often enough that they really care that the Cubs and Cards have been rivals for generations.

4). Youth sports isn’t a universal experience— by the time a kid hits 8-9 most sports are select teams. If you aren’t good enough to make the team, you don’t play. And these teams often require lots of parental commitment as they practice a couple times a week and travel for tournaments. This leads to a lot of kids growing up not really familiar with the game. It’s a lot harder to appreciate hitting the cutoff man when you stopped playing the sport after t-ball.

It’s really prohibitively expensive to attend games in person. Taking a family of four to a ballgame, buying each person a snack and a beverage is easily $100.

That's prohibitively expensive? I wish two people could get out of a hockey game for that, and I live in one of the less expensive cities in the NHL.

a game whose entire point is its pointlessness. playoffs are everything now, it didn't use to be this way. the fall classic was the last celebration of the season, not the point of the season. in baseball's greatest eras people were packing stadiums of teams that had no shot at the pennant. they weren't there to feed avarice, they were there to pass time watching summer's mandala.

I'll add a point of agreement to that. I never watch baseball on TV; it's incredibly dull. But I can have a blast at a game with my dad, because it's not about the game. It's a good time hanging out and chatting and drinking, with the occasional impressive/exciting play and interjection of obscure stat from my father.

What is the fucking point of this? What possible reason does a baseball team have to indicate a sexual preference? And why does this include mocking Catholics?

God this stuff is demoralizing. Is that the point?

You're focusing too much on the "baseball team" and not enough on the "Los Angeles." Pride is, for better or worse, a major secular holiday in the West Coast blue-tribe religion, particularly among those with disposable income. Every major institution in the area is expected to pay lip service to this. We have known this.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are a group which rose to prominence in the LGBT scene largely because of the work that a lot of their members did during the AIDs crisis - there's any number of other groups that do drag or religious-themed satire. I'd bet dollars to donuts that this history is why the Dodgers invited them. The idea that the Dodgers - a team whose most vociferous fans are Mexican/Centraco and overwhelmingly Catholic - did this thinking "Yeah, we'll stick an finger in the eye of Catholics" - doesn't pass the smell test. There's no reason to do it anyway; the local diocese has been liberal on sexuality and LGBT-issues for ages - at least since before I was born.

No, this isn't some sort of "power move." It was a big corporate body in a left-dominated City celebrating a lefty holiday, without relation to anyone else. For better or worse, trying to dictate how Los Angeles does Pride is pretty close to BoA and the HRC pitching hissy fits about not liking the Atlanta Braves' tomahawk-chop chant, or the more recent furore over the All-Star game and Georgia's voting laws.

Speak of the devil. I just attended a Curtis Yarvin, Delicious Tacos et al. event 5 days ago not 2 miles from Dodger stadium.

Another rare case where a boycott could possibly work -- "stay away from a baseball game for one night" is a pretty low-effort way of making a pretty big statement, if successful.

Either that or go to the game and throw fruit at the fake nuns, I guess.

Yes, the demoralization is the point. The new update just dropped. The "appeal to religious tolerance" bug has been patched. That particular tactic will no longer work. You lose.

Curtis Yarvin is right that this level of power cannot be challenged head-on. You really thought press-releases from Republican senators would work? This is the equivalent of a Japanese Banzai charge straight into dug-in machine gun emplacements and sighted artillery. They will not only defeat you handily, they will enjoy it the whole time.

I suppose if you really are Catholic (whatever that even means these day), you can have faith in "divine providence" or whatever to eventually fix things. For everyone else, we will have to simply live with the pain.

EDIT: Speaking of Republican Senators and sports leagues, if you want to know how mid-level white-collar employees in NY and LA feel about Republican Senators sending them open letters, here’s ESPN NBA reporter Adrian Wojnarowski sending a “Fuck you” email directly to Senator Josh Hawley.

This is the equivalent of a Japanese Banzai charge straight into dug-in machine gun emplacements and sighted artillery.

I've long thought that if the Catholics really wanted to win a battle in the Culture War, they should start repeating "anti-Catholic animus" (or perhaps some catchier -phobia or -ism term I'm not going to consider) in the same way that "racism" and "antisemitism" get thrown around. The historical citations aren't really unjustified: the KKK was founded as, among other things, anti-Catholic. All of the historical bias against Italians and Irish immigrants is at least somewhat rooted in anti-Catholic bias, as is some of the bias against Central and South American immigration. The Nazis persecuted Catholics. And they continue to be victims of hate crimes in the US.

On one hand, repetition legitimizes and a constant drone of "we're persecuted" is functionally how various groups on the left have achieved their existing hierarchy -- this seems to bear more relation to the quantity and quality of complaints than to any particular metrics of measurable oppression. On the other, I respect that Catholics absolutely could claim (some degree of) martyrdom in the Year of Our Lord 2023 but choose not to because silent stoicism better aligns with their principles.

if catholicism is anti-non-catholicism then why should not non-catholics be anti-catholicism?

The institutional RCC is still realizing that the progressive left does not like them and won’t tolerate them forever, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

That being said, this kind of tawdry shock value LGBT crudity is going to wake up bishops much, much more than, say, suing catholic nuns to make them pay for contraceptives.

I've long thought that if the Catholics really wanted to win a battle in the Culture War, they should start repeating "anti-Catholic animus" (or perhaps some catchier -phobia or -ism term I'm not going to consider) in the same way that "racism" and "antisemitism" get thrown around.

Ah but you see, when our side does it, it's not hate speech! We're just punching Nazis! The Catholics are the hateful murderous bigots and we are simply exercising our right to criticise ideas we do not agree with.

It wouldn't work. What constitutes "prejudice" or "discrimination" doesn't in practice follow coherent principles, it's merely "who, whom" because anti-Catholics (in a broad sense) control all media by which the message would be delivered and can thus mute o, even better, skew or taint the message.

It is a highly effective strategy. When I think of someone on TV complaining about anti-Catholicism, I think of some crackpot or blowhard that has been brought on as a slow news day sideshow, and I'm a practicing Catholic who believes anti-Catholicism is a serious problem! I know for a fact that there are many highly articulate priests and professors who could give an excellent rundown of anti-Catholicism on TV, I've personally seen many of them speak. But they would never be allowed on air for fear that they might actually sway some folks (look up Fr. Coughlin), so instead you get Bill Donahue.

How can an army fight without a general? The Pope won't even speak up against the German Catholics supporting gay "marriage". The Church needed a Tywin Lannister, and got a Tytos instead.

Catholics have had a sense of victimhood for a long time, but a traditional tactic of dealing with this victimhood was voting Democrat, which isn't exactly an effective defence against mockery of Catholic symbolism and values by progressives in the 21st century. I don't think it's that Catholics don't think that anti-Catholic animus isn't a thing or even that they don't try to talk about it, but that they don't have an effective strategy for doing anything about it.

For example, Catholics' ethics don't allow them to use the strategy that blocks the LA Dodgers doing an equivalent thing with a group of trans people mocking Islam - that some Muslims would try to kill the members of such a group and people associated with them, while also claiming victimhood. A child that cries and hits will attract more attention from an overindulgent parent than a child that just cries. Professed Catholics in America have many different ethical beliefs, but a common theme is that almost all of them aren't keen on violently attacking those who mock them. I think that's less "silent stoicism" and more "ethical passivity".

Professed Catholics in America have many different ethical beliefs, but a common theme is that almost all of them aren't keen on violently attacking those who mock them. I think that's less "silent stoicism" and more "ethical passivity".

Maybe they all should just go back and watch The Boondock Saints

On one hand, repetition legitimizes and a constant drone of "we're persecuted" is functionally how various groups on the left have achieved their existing hierarchy -- this seems to bear more relation to the quantity and quality of complaints than to any particular metrics of measurable oppression

Personally I don't see this strategy working at what it sets out to do, but I'm not opposed to it. "Anti-catholic animus" would very quickly be recognised by the human machinery of the Cathedral as a form of attack, even if just on an instinctual level, and they would go out of their way to try and retaliate. I don't see it working per se, but I do see it damaging the prestige and reputation of the Cathedral, so I endorse it anyway.

Does Yarvin offer a solution or a strategy?

"Be cool, don't be uncool." This is vague enough to be almost entirely unhelpful -- Yarvin has always been a much better descriptive thinker than a prescriptive thinker -- but there is a very real sense in which you cannot "force" it. When or if reaction comes, it will have to feel as natural as say, supporting Ukraine.

When or if reaction comes, it will have to feel as natural as say, supporting Ukraine.

...which is to say, not natural at all and entirely the product of MSM narrative-craft and bot astroturfing?

Astroturfing in favor of a position is only weak evidence for how sincere and natural the real supporters of it feel.

Calling the Dodgers a “baseball team” is like calling the Lakers a “basketball team.” The Dodgers are a historical, legacy team in the premier league for its sport, combined with a built-in fanbase via geography.

God this stuff is demoralizing. Is that the point?

Yes. Shock and awe. “All your base are belong to us” is more pertinent than usual.

Lower your shields and surrender your sports. We will add your last bastions of cismaleness to our own. Your fans will adapt to serve us.

Some were originally using the original disinvitation of “The Sisters” as an example of “the Right” winning. However, they may be underestimating progressive plot armor.

From an accelerationalist standpoint, I’m more than open to the idea of LGBTQ+ sacking and conquering collegiate and professional sports, whether it be cultural dominance in men’s sports or replacement in women’s.

it's appropriate to only refer to them as a baseball team. the dodgers don't map to the lakers, being gracious they maybe map to the celtics, but the best comparison is probably, and appropriately enough, the clippers. LA audience, high payroll, strong regular seasons followed by consistently choking in the playoffs. there's 2020, but most fans already consider that a fake season and title.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats