site banner

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
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?

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.