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 -
This already exists in the form of, e.g., Unitarian Universalism. It has not been hugely popular. I think there are a couple of reasons for this that similar proposals generally run into as well.
First, its teachings aren't different enough from intuitive "be nice" ethics to have any point. People who even think about the idea of ethical living generally do not need such basic levels of guidance, which makes the enterprise little more than a social club. But demanding more is too exclusionary or too "irrational", and therefore left to the other churches. I think that being exclusionary in at least some ways is critical to fostering a bond and creating a sense of actual belonging.
Related to this, the entire idea of religiosity without contradicting material existence is oxymoronic and counterproductive. The thing that people with a religious void feel they are missing is mystery, an insistence that there are some things that are beyond our comprehension, that are above and beyond us, forever. The peace that religion offers is from knowing that you don't have to think about it or justify it, you know and believe it without thinking. You cannot replicate the things that religion offers without offering undoubtable truth, but this is something that materialists cannot really bring themselves to do.
Another problem is that organizations without an unshakable grounding in text or canon will be highly vulnerable to entryism and taken over by activists. We saw this precise thing play out already in the Atheism movement, which tore itself apart when activists started trying to add political planks to the Atheism belief framework. Wishy-washy "be excellent to each other" churches will quickly succumb to the exact same issues simply because activists are more motivated than people who are there to sing hymns and pat each other on the back about how moral and ethical they are.
Strong agree on your comments about the New Atheism movement that went hard left, entryism, and the value of canon. This is why my loose proposal was framed in terms of 'Christian Atheism' or secular Judaism, instead of an example without a canon actively policed by the actually/avowedly faithful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link