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 -
I have pretty much had it with people who ranted about "trump disrespecting the troops!" now waving the flag of Hezbollah who actually killed a lot of those troops.
The next time a Democrat starts regurgitating NPR at me I'm going to end up saying something friendship-ruiningly impolite because I just can't hold in the anger at this stupidity any more. It's almost worse than 2020 because the deranged hysteria isn't happening in unique circumstances.
How do you all deal with this every day?
It's arguments as soldiers and I have to constantly remind myself to keep in mind (1) don't do it myself, i.e. uphold now something I formerly said I opposed simply because it's someone on My Side saying it or it is an effective tactic in an argument I'm having and (2) be aware of when My Side and Our Guys do it as well.
I frequently get smacked on the wrist by the mods for breaches of "boo outgroup", but from my perspective, I'm being consistent: there are some things I don't accept, and I don't care if it's Susie Green or the Pope arguing for acceptance of those things, I'll oppose them both. And if the Pope says it, I'll say he's wrong (at the moment, despite it all, Francis is not saying that yet on some topics so, so far, so good) even though otherwise I do accept the authority of the Pope as the boss of me.
Technically, so long as it isn't ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, isn't it always a possibility that the pope is wrong about [insert topic here]? I mean, at least from the Catholic perspective?
There's a fun saying I bring up from time to time when people try to use the statements of leaders of my church (I'm Mormon) against me/my faith/some position I hold: "The pope says he's infallible, but no one believes him. The Mormon prophet says he is fallible, but no one believes him."
Yes, you don’t have to believe non-official pronouncements of the pope, or official pronouncements not about faith or morals. But also the usual line about ‘papal infallibility has only been used 4 times in the history of the church, dogmatic beliefs are quite limited’ is also wrong.
The Catholic Church has the extraordinary magisterium, which is always infallible- infallible papal pronouncements and anathematizations by ecumenical councils fall here- and the ordinary magisterium, produced by the normal working of church governance, and which Carries varying levels of weight. A few arguable examples of infallible acts of the ordinary magisterium are Humanae Vitae, canonizations, the condemnation of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rulings that women cannot be priests, etc. All of these are arguable as to their infallibility but Catholic theologians universally agree that disagreeing with them and remaining a Catholic is an extremely high bar(except for a minority of theologians who argue that disagreeing with post 1980 canonizations has a much lower bar due to changes in the process. Many of these theologians can point to specific examples of recent canonizations they disagree with, usually Oscar Romero or JoseMaria Escriva) in terms of effort put in and carefulness of the claim.
So in practice there’s some ambiguity as to what’s infallible or not, but general agreement as to what’s a weighty teaching and what can be disagreed with rather more freely(recent doctrines on the death penalty being an example in the latter category). There’s also an understanding that some teachings can be disagreed with, but the disagreement Carries a very high minimum in terms of effort, theological supports, caution with which it is expressed, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, yeah. The Pope can't say "The Brazil nut is the one and only official nut of the Catholic Church and anyone consuming any other nut is going straight to Hell". There's wiggle room. If he's going to change teaching, he better have a dang good reason and an entire team of theologians backing him up (this applies to any pope, I'm not picking on Francis in particular here).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link