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 -
Pierre Poilievre, current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, recently filibustered the Canadian House of Commons for almost four hours. I do not wish to go over all points made in his speech; rather, I would like to focus on a particular excerpt of it which I find typifies contemporary "woke" ideology and presents an adequate characterization of this mode of thought (despite the oft-toted meme that "woke" doesn't have a clear definition). A transcript of said excerpt may be found here.
For all their talk of having been re-educated out of racism, bigotry, et cetera, progressive liberals seem to be the first to make snap judgments on exactly those characteristics they claim not to harbour any biases towards. Consider this paper on the "competence downshift" by White liberals, which asserts:
The presumed moral superiority of progressive liberal thought, enlightened from the baser animal instincts of tribal, racist thinking, seems to blind this kind of person from seeing how they themselves are guilty of the very things they stare down their noses and sneer at the "others" for. How did we get to this point, where mere tribal identification to an ideology, a political party, a flag, a word, is able to convince someone that they are the opposite of what they proclaim to be?
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon: it is reminiscent of the organized religions of old, where pledging allegiance to a man who was nailed to a cross for preaching a message of love and acceptance is sufficient to transform a person into one of upstanding moral character; where performing such rituals as making the sign of the cross is enough to imbue one with divine virtue; where prompting one's internal language model with the appropriate passage or hymn is enough to evoke a rote choral response. Just because Christ preached a message of virtue doesn't mean that Christians who purportedly follow in his footsteps actually are virtuous; indeed, there are many progressive liberals who will readily chastise Christians for being antiquated, racist LGBTQ+-phobes, far from the paragons of virtue they profess to be.
Yet, how is the structure of their progressive thought any different from the very Christians they chastise? Does pledging allegiance to the Ministry of Diversity truly make one accepting of diversity, any more than pledging allegiance to the Ministry of Love or the Ministry of Truth means that they are indeed acting in service of Love or Truth? Does flying a pride flag mean that one truly is a tolerant, accepting individual? Conversely, does refusing to fly these colours mean that one is anti-tolerance, anti-acceptance, and LGBTQ+-phobic?
Perhaps this is what is meant by the antiquated injunctions against idolatry and iconolatry; the rote, superficial worship of symbols of divinity blinds one from actually undertaking the journey of inner psychological change and transformation to practice those virtues in the real world. In a contemporary context, the icons of divinity have been replaced by language, terminology, and indeed, new iconography that professes to stand for virtue, the usage of which is sufficient to deem one as an upstanding citizen of good moral character.
Hence the emergence of iconoclasts, who sought to bring to light the artificial nature of these icons and their lack of correspondence to any true underlying reality.
So too with the term, the icon of worship, "liberalism," and the semantic drift that has occurred to transform this word into its complete opposite. It has become a pure simulacrum, untethered from the original referent to which it was intended to point.
Coming full circle to Poilievre's remarks now:
Why are you attacking Christians in this? And no simply confessing loyalty etc and doing signs of the cross is NOT sufficient. Sure there are some watered down Christian sects out there etc but this is low manning Christianity in an unnecessary way to make your point. And simply not true.
Honestly sure there are some interesting thoughts here but there is no reason to deal with a post that attacks an unrelated third group.
Ok but Christians don’t regard performance of ceremonies as virtues. Priest are in hell. Popes are not automatically Saints and many are not. People raised to Sainthood are people who are believed to have inner virtue. The reasons ceremonies are performed are to remind yourself of beliefs and virtues etc while also doing things that have specific connections with god - like the Eucharist’s.
I think deep down what you are getting at in your posts is that they realized hbd is true. It’s likely magnified by the barbell strategy of the left where they do well with the top 20% and bottom 30% of society. And the minorities in the left dominate the bottom 30%. With the right doing better in the middle class it means they would have I guess relatively underperforming whites and over performing minorities which would be closer on intelligence.
I think are just showing that they are aware of group differences. But I don’t think it really changed that they “really love minorities”.
When you decide to not engage--don't engage. @sliders1234 has been moderated and even banned in the past for not responding to what people actually say, so you're not alone. But namecalling is against the rules, always. Don't do this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link