site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26357 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Jewish insistence to insert their Menorahs on public lands, regardless of how few Jews live in some municipality, has always been Culture War. And unlike the traditional Christmas displays which genuinely are now fully secularized, these Menorah displays are deeply religious in nature. The rationalization is that these Menorahs are symbols of "religious tolerance", but they are not, they are sacred symbols of the Jewish religion and everything it represents, including Zionism.

It is ironic to now see Jews complaining about "selective interpretation" of the law, given that they've enjoyed a state of affairs where Christian holy symbols- crosses and Nativity, are banned on public lands and the Jewish holy symbol is revered on the same. Really, they are complaining about an equalization of the law where only secular symbols are allowed. Yes, that includes the Christmas tree and excludes the Menorah.

The Menorah is a minor religious symbol and does not hold the same status in Judaism as the cross does in Christianity. The Torah is probably about as important to Jews as the cross is to Christians, and the Torah is not regularly displayed in public spaces.

It's true that Menorahs on public grounds have always been culture war, but I think everything else in your post is gross exaggeration.

The menorah is a more ancient symbol of Judaism than the Star of David. It's the symbol of the Mossad... Saying it is "a minor religious symbol" is not only untrue but doesn't even challenge the point I'm making. It is a religious symbol of Judaism (can you name any symbols more important than the menorah? You say "the Torah" which is a book and not even a symbol per se...) so it doesn't belong on public lands if our laws were fairly interpreted.

I'm trying to challenge your statement:

And unlike the traditional Christmas displays which genuinely are now fully secularized, these Menorah displays are deeply religious in nature.

I don't see how you can argue that a "traditional Christmas display" (such as the angels/trumpets linked in the OP, or the still common nativity scenes) is "fully secularized" while a Menorah is not. My point is that the Menorah has no more significance in Judaism than these symbols have in Christianity, and I'd even argue it is much more minor than something like the nativity.

Christmas is fully integrated as part of the general Civic Religion. Every atheist I know celebrates Christmas with a Christmas tree etc. I agree angels are more debatable, sure ban them too. But a Christmas tree is a symbol of a civic ritual, Christianity will decline but Christmas will continue to grow bigger than ever.

My point is that the Menorah has no more significance in Judaism than these symbols have in Christianity

A Menorah has far more religious symbolism than a Christmas tree, which is clearly inspired from Pagan rituals and has no symbolic relation to Christianity at all.

A Christmas tree is genuinely a secular symbol, a menorah is not a secular symbol. The menorah is literally the centerpiece of the official emblem of the State of Israel, it is not secular at all.

Christmas trees came about in the 1500s in the Baltics and are decidedly Lutheran in origin. The notion that Christmas is merely a rebranded pagan holiday (Yule or Saturnalia) is anti-Christian propaganda.

Other than Santa Claus*, Reindeer, and Snowflakes, all major Christmas symbols are directly Christian (decorated Christmas trees, Angels, Star of Bethlehem)

*(and even then Saint Nicholas, is obviously, a link to Christianity)

I don't think Christmas is a rebranded pagan holiday that is now Christian, it's a rebranded Christian holiday that is now pagan. The mythos around Santa Claus and Christmas, very little of it has anything to do with Christianity. A Christmas tree holds no religious significance, it marks participation in the dyonisian winter festivities that have always featured in Indo-European civilization with many commonalities. The entire Christmas aesthetic is fundamentally pagan and hyperborean, with the Nativity as the exception. The rest of it is absolutely secular.

Santa Claus is not a saint, he's an immortal pagan god, and a goofy god at that.

I get my mother a Santa Claus figurine each year.

I will be shopping for the "IMMORTAL PAGAN GOD" version this year. Thank you.

Don't worry, you have plenty of examples to choose from.

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