site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   31564 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 New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

But how is that relevant to the empirical issue of the nature of the organization? And, if people here don't actually believe in canceling groups just because someone finds them offensive, but are just pretending to because progressives get away with it, how are their claims worthy of respect?

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.

By your reasoning, someone mocking blacks but whose mockery includes fried chicken and watermelon is just using blacks because of the stereotype's "availability". After all, people other than blacks eat fried chicken and watermelon.

"They're attacking X, but only for their availability, not for their enmity, so it doesn't count" is a bizarre piece of hair splitting.

You may be right.

Those particular racial stereotypes don’t feel like a good fit. I’m not sure whether I can justify that feeling.

But if I pick a closer example—say, a white guy dressing up as Native American while protesting gambling laws—it would still be pretty uncomfortable. Dude certainly wouldn’t be getting invited to baseball games. That feels like it should generalize.

  1. I assume that they do not think that homosexual behavior is a sin, while I believe that the Catholic Church still teaches otherwise.

  2. They dress as nuns, but I see no evidence of them mocking any Catholic religious practices, such as confession, etc.

  3. I see no evidence that they mention any political views held by the Church at all. Their website does not even complain of homophobia by the Church, as far as I can see.

  4. See number 3.

  5. Possibly true, but I see no explicit evidence

6-8: No.

They dress as nuns, but I see no evidence of them mocking any Catholic religious practices, such as confession, etc.

Doesn't dressing as nuns count as a religious practice?

I would say that there's also a difference between a show and actions taken in real life. When Upstart Crow talks about "they burn you for eating a wafer!" (Which I know is referring to the protestant monarch, but there's other eucharist jokes as well) It doesn't feel nearly as mean-spirited as actually partaking in a mock sacrament.

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