site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   29347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd like you to acknowledge that, transhumanism in both this specific and the general sense is as consequential as getting thrown out of heaven. We're talking about changes to the nature of man, sex and identity here.

I shall acknowledge no such thing, as I don't think they ARE comparable. Making changes to yourself and your own identity is something everyone should be free to do. I would in fact say that is the core aspect of being human. That whole pesky free will thing. It might turn out to be a bad decision, perhaps they will hate what they become. But that is their choice. Far from being a horror, being constrained from that free will would be the horror.

There is also a difference between a punishment and a consequence. A punishment requires intentionality on behalf of the punisher. A consequence does not. The outcome for a trans person may well be bad, but I highly doubt it is bad because God is punishing them directly. Reality has no intentionality in my view. God doesn't punish you for not looking where you are going and getting hit by a lump of metal going 60 mph. Reality does that without any such divine interventions required. So it is with transhumanism. And that is the true black pill. God is not responsible for our outcomes, only the vast uncaring universe is. There is no intention, there is no design. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

You are missing the point.

What you're saying in both of these paragraphs reduces to the same two things.

Either we accept Abrahamic metaphysical axioms and your statements are obvious contradictions (God created the universe with intention, consequences and all, therefore arguing there is no intent behind it doesn't make sense on the face of it).

Or this is a statement of rejection of such metaphysical principles and the assertion of a different metaphysic that simply does not apply at all to this discussion. You can be a nihilist all you want, it doesn't really enter into Catholicism.

And if you want to say that it does because nihilism is true then you have to prove that it is, which is something no metaphysical doctrine, including yours, can ever do. Inherently.

Now aside from that, I still think it's completely ridiculous to deny that making oneself and one's own identity isn't an important and grandiose topic and in the same breath admitting that it has large consequence. If your only argument is that it doesn't matter because nothing matters, I question both your understanding of importance as a concept and the relevance of nihilist perspectives to any discussion.

Even constraining our situation to one where the Christian God exists however my point is that His punishments are clear and direct. He doesn't give you mildly bad outcomes as a punishment. He smites your city. He floods the world. He lets you see the promised land then exiles you from it. He forces you to choose to kill 70,000 of your followers.

KMC's point was that the bad outcomes WERE God's punishment. But this is not consistent with this version of God. It could be consistent with YOUR version* of the universe's intentionality as God, but that isn't the God we were discussing. And since Jesus died for our sins, even those direct punishments ceased, with the idea that anyone can be forgiven and find God, through Jesus Christ. Trans people could be punished after death if their actions are sinful, but God's punishments are no longer during life. And even when they were, they were very direct.

*It could also be consistent with no God, a blind watchmaker style God and so on of course.

It's not true that in the Jewish and Christian traditions the consequences of sin only take the form of massive spectacles, even if we look only to the Bible.

Cain killed his brother and was cursed to wander the earth and have bad crops.

King David raped the wife of one his most loyal men and then had that man killed to keep it covered up. His punishment was that the child produced by that rape would die.

Abraham violated his marriage by laying with Hagar, and the consequence was strife between Hagar and Sarah that eventually led to Abraham being separated from his and Hagar's son.

Jonah was reticent to convey God's prophecy and was punished by a storm at sea and a short stay in a whale.

Judas Iscariot betrayed God and committed suicide.

Setting aside for a moment the mechanics of punishment and that particular theological argument, surely we must agree that most Christians in the sense we mean here (and Catholics in particular) do, in fact, believe in divine intervention and miracles to this day.

As for punishment, quoting official catholic catechism should help us clarify things here:

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

So no, I'm afraid the nature of sin still makes the punishment we're talking about extant in this life, Christ's forgiveness doesn't remand all judgement to one's death.

A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

This would indicate that the poor outcomes for trans people after surgery are NOT temporal punishment from God (because even if they fervently convert and repent it cannot be undone and thus punishment would remain), however.

Not quite, and funnily enough this is addressed by literally the next passage:

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."

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