site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26666 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Im a little drunk on thanksgiving. Can someone tell me the pope having lunch with transgenders is false.

https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/1727444933207056730?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ

This was low effort. I think a 7-day ban is too much. But this is still something where as a Catholic you would be like what I’m seeing has to be wrong. I will eat it. This isn’t an unworthy culture war post if it fact checks which from Hannania I assumed he did.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Christianity is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as transgender ideology. Believing that a certain man 2000 years ago was the son of god and rose from the dead is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as believing that a man can become a woman by calling himself a woman and doing surgeries. But many people here on The Motte give Christianity a pass because it's really old and really popular and so it seems "normal", because they like its cultural/political connotations, and probably in some cases because they were raised Christian.

But I don't give Christianity a pass. When people tell me that they are Christian, I have pretty much the same reaction as I have when people try to convince me that a trans woman is a real woman. In both cases, I think that their beliefs are ludicrous and deeply irrational.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Christianity is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as transgender ideology. Believing that a certain man 2000 years ago was the son of god and rose from the dead is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as believing that a man can become a woman by calling himself a woman and doing surgeries.

In theory yes, in practice no. Your parents dragging you as child to church for dunking in cold water or to gender clinic for gender affirming treatment is one big difference.

But many people here on The Motte give Christianity a pass because it's really old and really popular and so it seems "normal", because they like its cultural/political connotations, and probably in some cases because they were raised Christian.

Because Christianity is no big issue here, because only arguments for Christianity usually presented here are: "it is ancient" "it is our tradition" "churches are beautiful" "church music is inspiring" "if you are lonely, you will find friends in church" "you must believe in something, why not Jesus" etc...

If poster, or group of posters tried to preach, evangelize and missionize here in noughties hardcore style, if they came and argued for literal existence of God, literal truth of the Bible and literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, they would not be given any "pass", they would face strong opposition and generated lots of interesting discussions full of heat and light. Anyone who does not remember the great Atheist-Christian war of the noughties, missed internet at its best.

they came and argued for literal existence of God, literal truth of the Bible and literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

It might surprise you that (as far as I know, at least) there are several regular users who do believe this, largely or entirely, and discuss it regularly. They are generally pretty welcome.

Have any of us ever argued for the literal truth of the first 11 chapters of Genesis? I believe I have made posts about the theory of mind of literalist YEC's, and that we have a few posters who will point out that it doesn't hurt anyone in practice to have a large percentage of the population believe it, and that that is more or less the closest this forum has seen.

Posters do come and argue for literal existence of God.

There were those who made themselves eunuchs for Christ. Not really that popular any more, for some reason.

Okay, the context for that quote is Jesus saying "Divorce is a no-no"; Matthew 19:

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Now, who or what were the "eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom"? Because this is during the ministry of Christ when He is still alive, and before Christianity became differentiated from Judaism. So does He mean literal 'guys who chopped off their balls' or 'guys who are living celibate lives without marriage or sex so they won't be distracted from the mission'?

I don't think I've ever seen exegesis of this passage, and I should go look it up. Off the top of my head, the only case of an early Christian doing literal castration was Origen, and he's considered A Bit Odd.

Though seemingly there were pro- and anti- sides on this!

Justin Martyr, First Apology, AD 155-157:

Chapter 29. Continence of Christians And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did. And it is not out of place, we think, to mention here Antinous, who was alive but lately, and whom all were prompt, through fear, to worship as a god, though they knew both who he was and what was his origin.

But by the fourth century, there was a problem; seemingly an ascetical cult which practiced castration had grown up and become influential:

Two centuries later Basil of Ancyra devoted several sections of his treatise On the True Integrity of Virginity (ca. 336-58) to the same practice. Unlike Justin, however, Basil hardly considers this evidence of a man's continence: on the contrary, those who "perversely" castrate themselves "by this very deed make a declaration of their own licentiousness".

So does He mean literal 'guys who chopped off their balls' or 'guys who are living celibate lives without marriage or sex so they won't be distracted from the mission'?

My understanding is that he meant the former, since the language they were speaking definitely distinguished between the two. Indeed, in context it makes no sense. Why would he say 'eunuchs made by men' (clearly meaning castrated men) only to immediately say 'eunuchs by choice', only this time using the word metaphorically and not literally?

Well, I find the distinction interesting because if you're volunteering to have your balls chopped off, you are still being made a eunuch by men. Now, there is indeed the difference between "castrated as a child/taken as a prisoner or slave and castrated", and "volunteered to be castrated", I recognise that, but there is also some possibility of "voluntarily abstaining from sex, by choice, as if one is a eunuch".

The entire discussion is in the context of marriage, and how it's hard to abstain from sex, which is why those who do so by choice do it "for the sake of the kingdom".

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