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 -
When that film came out I recall historians claiming that it was wildly inaccurate. As a matter of historical fact: the last day of Jesus's life did not occur as depicted in that film. It's not a documentary or factual historical reenactment.
Crucifixion was a really painful and drawn-out way to die. So that was approximately correct and of course believed by Christians. But the wildly exaggerated scourging and out of control Roman soldiers was fictional torture porn for torture porn's sake.
As a matter of historical fact, Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.
It may not have actually happened as shown in the movie, but people believe it happened. Which still disqualifies it from either being torture porn or from being treated the same way as intentional fiction.
Does this assertion add any light to the conversation, or just heat? Would a reversed version of this assertion, made by a Christian, add any light to the conversation?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The passion of Christ was based on actual Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions about how it went down and not on the consensus among secular historians about what Roman judicial practices would have looked like because it was a religious film.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link