What follows is something different for the site – an essay.
mores pl (plural only)
A set of moral norms or customs derived from generally accepted practices rather than written laws.
July 1776: The USA was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs about morality and justice as a new republic, spun-off from the British empire. Today (2024) with an interest in inclusivity and impartiality, the USA welcomes people from all cultural backgrounds. “The great melting pot” is America’s idiom, representing a cauldron where the simmering contents are becoming equalized. People bring their histories with them to steam into a shared future, assimilating and adapting to a varied yet shared culture. With an interest in freedom, a secular principle is often applied to not weigh one belief system or religion with authoritative dominance over another. This leads to relativist thinking that has muddied morality and behavior.
Part of that is the perception that people shouldn’t, under principles of freedom, dictate behavior of another, as not defined by law. In other words, it can be considered rude to tell someone how to live their life. Behavior that is lawful and not disturbing or infringing on someone else isn’t defined as prohibited, and so it is allowed. With that as the context, the culture war is a perception among moral people of a degradation of social values. It’s the perception that immorality is being pushed into (overall) culture and tangentially toward their families and themselves. Morally, it’s not correct to react with apathy or indifference to immorality. It’s not tolerance to have no reaction to perceived immorality. Intolerance of some magnitude, even if it’s not vocalized, is what is called for. The culture war is a collection of controversies: a competition of ideas. It is a competition of visions for society which has battles fought in governmental legislation and in the public space in the media through argumentation.
Some perceive that mores, social norms or customs, are being corrupted. A simple example of ‘don’t use profanity in public’ might be illustrative. It is hard to survey “use of profanity in public” across a period of years, although it is easier to survey instances of degraded moral standards on television.
Around 30 years ago it was decided that non-explicit implied nudity on the ABC network show “NYPD Blue” passed the censors, yet acted as a sexual element that could draw in viewers to the drama, or add another layer of realism.
Around 25 years ago it was decided that episodes of TV shows that addressed or included homosexuality in some way, serious or unserious, added a sexual element. This was employed to draw in viewers, especially on “sweeps week”, a particular week’s episode that fell during a Nielsen rating period. Shows including Fox’s “Ally McBeal” and “24” included a short lesbian kiss scene to entice viewers to tune in, prior to the era of the DVR.
Less than 25 years ago around the time that HDTV was new, it was decided that standards of decency, including profanity, applied to only broadcast network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS). Cable TV networks known more properly as “expanded cable” or “expanded Basic [cable]” accordingly were then cleared to feature profanity, like premium pay channels like HBO and Showtime. The newer shows avoided the strongest expletives initially to add drama with strong language, yet not turn off people with going too far with language that was too strong. On American television, TV ratings appeared with a TV-MA graphic in the corner. This was to warn viewers at the start, and after each commercial break when scenes began again, that the program was intended for a mature audience, or at least a viewer willing to accept hearing profanity. Later, darker TV shows would appear further pushing the boundaries of language and gore, previously limited to the likes of HBO and Showtime.
This in and of itself isn’t even the culture war, although you might consider this a trend of further liberalizing or a further corrupting of TV storytelling, which reflects and influences American society to some degree.
Much of the culture war falls along the lines of unnatural sexuality, particularly in the public sphere, which inclusive of homosexuality, strikes people with better morality as morally offensive. Homosexuality, while discouraged, is allowed in the USA under the secular principles of individual freedoms, and tolerance of differing views. It’s this premise that evil people have to be tolerated, that many find creepy.
Once in an era of black and white TV, a man dressed as a woman was comedy. Later on in the public sphere it became mentally ill. Now it is asserted that a male actor acting as a woman is to be tolerated and respected as an individual using their freedom, even though they don’t have the genes or the anatomy to give birth or nurse a baby. Even when their youth subsides and in middle age, they wind up with surgically fashioned fake breasts, sound like a gay guy, and have “man hands” – a cautionary tale, for sure.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s gays began to assert that their cause of socially liberal liberty was a civil right comparable to the civil rights cause of African Americans. Lawyers were employed to this end, and they successfully used the civil rights argument to gain sympathy for the sake of being open minded about ‘loving whoever you want’, and tolerance of differing views. Publicity led to the coining of the phrase “homophobic” as a way to turn a ‘fear of homosexuals’ back around 180 degrees to look down on the moral objectioner as prudish, bigoted, or hateful. I feel that “creepophobic”* is more accurate.
Gradually Hollywood was “lobbied” to be persuaded of socially liberal sexuality, and TV shows and movies subtly and not so subtly sought to expand the moral horizons of America. This combined with progressive academia, and their students, produced a couple of generations, as of late, who are somewhat more atheist and who object to the moral boundaries of their grandfathers in various ways. Some small percentage chooses the life of a pervert, openly living in immorality, based on encouragement from society and other open minded people. In the past 50 years homosexuality and other variations of disordered sexuality have gone from “underground” or hidden – “closeted” – to where individuals are overt and brazenly offensive about it.
So this is to illustrate that there has been some moral decay over time in the aspect of sexuality, which while very personal is a topic of great controversy. The various disorders of sexuality are highly offensive to moral individuals and proper parents. Perverts represent a threat to the family and to normal society. A friend or acquaintance who is openly bi-sexual, which is an evil attitude, would represent a threat to a husband and wife. Case in point: actor Johnny Depp and ex-wife Amber Heard and her female friend, allegedly. A friend or acquaintance who is openly same-sex attracted would represent a threat to spread moral and sexual corruption, or to betray someone instead of rather being a friend to them.
One hundred years ago, sex was between a man and woman who married young. In love, they chose to start a family, and there was no controversy. With the growth of cities, people moved out of farms in the country, and they wanted bathrooms with indoor plumbing and showers, instead of outhouses. This ease of life in a generation’s time – being able to have a daily shower – helped to contribute to the moral degeneration of being open to homosexuality. A small amount of males, though clean on the outside, harbored a disorder on the inside. They would then spread their immoral views like a disease. Homosexuality, originally viewed as a mental disease, through liberalizing of the science of psychology, later would be reclassified as rather just an option for people.
Now in the 21st century we have a controversy that has outraged parents, when children are becoming corrupted into questioning their own gender. Sometimes this is by their own schoolteacher, who may themselves be liberally sexually minded, having been hired on the principles of open mindedness and notions of fairness and impartiality. Again, lobbying is employed in the state and federal level, in the disguise of freedom and tolerance and open mindedness, to change public policy in sympathy of effectively perverts rights.
The State of California has passed a bill allowing a child who wants sex change “healthcare” to get away with it against the will of their parents if they travel to California. Care for somebody who is genuinely intersex due to a rare genetic mutation is sort of nobody’s business. What’s more concerning rather, is perverts misleading children. A child who sees a psychologist about getting a sex change might be prescribed medication and almost ushered into an operating room in a matter of weeks in the worst cases. Parents may be excluded from crucial conversations about life decisions of teens that would have irreparable consequences. I can rightfully write this because this has happened in some cases, and these parents ring the alarm bells for other parents to raise awareness. Accordingly, sensible loving parents with normally ordered conceptions of sexuality are rightfully outraged at how society, or teachers, or counselors, or a clinical psychologist could have persuaded their child to take on the outward appearance of the opposite gender, complete with taking on a new first name.
Those who are committed to the evils of homosexuality have employed lawyers to state by state ban something called “conversion therapy”. Conversion therapy is a specific practice which they conflate to be easily confused with counseling. The net result is a misunderstanding that a child is not to be counseled, when in fact they can be. It amounts to a deception to discourage changing a child’s mind, facilitating ongoing corruption. It is a communist tactic for lack of a better phraseology, to assert power through language in defining or redefining words and phrases.
In some circles, tolerance of transsexuals is emphasized, which many may not find sympathy to, but they find it revolting. Speaking out on the individual’s bad judgment or the propriety can be scolded as being bigoted or hateful. Certainly reactions sometimes might be hateful and handled with hostility, as it is a controversial matter of immorality that provokes a strong negative reaction. In recent years it has taken “former males” winning in girls sports to elevate the matter of tolerance to more of a debate.
So the culture war has reoriented values at odds with many, and they in many forums preclude discussion and opposition. Employees on social media networks had policies for confrontation where they would lock your account and require an apology if you communicated something that was perceived as anti-gay or creepophobic*. Discussion was shut down based on a redefining of norms. It’s even come to light that a fact checker organization used by Facebook was manned by highly liberal people who asserted their ideologies whenever they could, judging through their deviant moral biases.
It’s not entirely new that some would cast a moral segment of the population in the negative as if they were immoral, or an undesirable class. Both sides have an adversity to one another, and on the part of the immoral faction who at times might even argue that no barriers (no standards) results in the highest standard, what the moral faction faces is an ideological front, or a faction committed to warped principles. Much persuasion comes from a minority of people who are childless, set to impose norms and policies onto those who greatly desire to raise a proper, healthy family. Love makes the world go ’round, and that leads to families which keeps it going. How “family safe” and “G-rated” does American society have to be? There is a conversation to be had there.
Much of the culture war is concerned with governance. That’s politics — arguing about how to run things (laws and norms). The immoral faction is persuaded by their leaders who are politicians and political operatives and activists, along with sell-out former journalists who continue to play the role. Those leaders use persuasion and dissuasion and evasion in lieu of having a real conversation or arguing with substance. In examining particularly progressive and liberal media, one needs to check that a statement presented as fact isn’t merely an opinion, or an assertion without any “there” there. Within their communication you’ve got a deception like 3D chess; it’s got depth that you’re not accustomed to. One needs to check that rudeness and emotional language isn’t used to form an emotional memory of the topic, thereby using a form of humor to seal the connection of allegiance to that opinion. The viewer or the reader winds up receiving the opinions of their leaders’ persuasion, as their own, often based on opinion or a spin – a linguistic pivot – not factual truth.
The tribal mentality is reinforced with titillation in the form of humor. People associate the word titillation with sexual arousal, but really titillation can be a point of emotional attachment triggered by violence, profanity, humor, and various “shocking” things. When watching and listening to commentators speak and you step back and count “that’s an assertion”, “that’s an exaggeration”, “that’s a statement of opinion”, “that’s an allegation disguised as a statement of fact”, “that’s a distortion”, you become more aware of the tactics being used in the media. For example on every network’s news show at the same time, flipping channels, you might see a different political operative using the same phrase. Talking points are sent out from the party organization from their information “war room”, for their points, or against their opposition. You come to realize that the media end of the perpetrators of the culture war aren’t being intellectually honest. You come to see that the moral faction is up against a quasi-communist front pushing immorality on the US populace.
Awareness of this and its response is the culture war. Of course there’s no shortage of opinionists in the USA, but there is a shortage of debate except in conservative media and talk radio. Only in such conservative media, or conservative circles on social media, is a negative light shown on the increasing corruption seen in society today, as propagated by the liberal progressive ideologues. As such, part of the culture war is getting involved to push back and reverse policy decisions, and part is spectating from the sidelines in hearing and reading about the news of the culture war. What you see from the conservative commentators and pundits is argumentation based on fact from memory. They wouldn’t say something if they couldn’t back up their statements (with very rare exceptions). On their honor, the show they are doing is on the record.
Increasingly leaks are coming out through FOIA requests and whistle-blowers, well-researched non-fiction books, and notably “The Twitter Files”, that reveal depths of the conspiracy to advance corruption and stifle dissent. If it weren’t for talk radio and conservative news outlets we would have a one-party state. That is to say, the USA would have not just two major political parties with a handful of variations, but that it would have only the “Democrat” party. News would be further corrupted to, à la Soviet Russia, support the people in power and tell only to the public what “the party” wishes for them to be told or allowed to learn.
Today we have more and more people who are having their eyes opened to how polarizing the progressive agendas are, and they, particularly parents and those of that age, are turning to conservative sources with interest in what is being done to push back, or to learn of the latest controversy. In turn, people are changing their politics as they mature. The older you get, the more the tribal mentality makes its imprint, and the deeper the political identity gets. But what is happening is that the loyalty individuals once had to a channel, or a news anchor, or a comedian, or a leader, or a political party, is shifting – based on learning new facts of recent history, and what amounts to better arguments, and perspectives and opinions they’ve never encountered before. Part of it is just maturity. Part of it is an eye opening personal experience, like where you find the moral reaction and your friends, set in their political identities, disagree due to corrupted principles. In our Human existence we grow. We look at character development as an expected element of a good movie, and some of us resist that in our own lives.
What is the culture war? It’s an allergic reaction to a growing infection of immorality.
Forces of immorality are pushing a soft war on those with better moral instincts. It’s soft, because for the most part we’re talking about adjustments – changed policies, relaxed policies, new policies. Loosened boundaries – more permissions – breaking down of taboos – diminishment of judgments and penalties. It’s war for the same reasons: judgment — sense – has become faulty, and it is invasive. The progress of bad sense seems to have no limit, nor any intention to be confronted. No argumentative reasoning can be applied. The immorality is spreading, and it refuses to submit. The immoral faction twists our human sympathies against us, and cloaks itself in an appearance of justice and virtue. Its tactics of avoiding debate, persuading with emotional trickery, and demonizing the virtuous opposition prove that its assertions of righteousness are a false front.
Why should you care about the culture war? Fundamentally you should care about the truth and about being deceived. Underpinning reality is truth. Now I don’t want to write you a thick volume on “The Truth”, although as a matter of respect fundamentally all are owed the truth, with some exceptions such as concealment for the sake of “security” and “privacy”. But a corrupted truth – or perhaps a superset of facts – manipulates perceptions of reality apart from what it is. Persuading the masses into having immoral attitudes and opinions betrays Humanity.
You can’t care about everything. You can only care about so much, although it’s right to care. The parent has a greater stake in the culture war than somebody young. It’s right to care about your household, about your family, about your town, about your state or province, and about your nation. Laws that get passed affect you where you live. Decisions and dealings with the federal government may have ramifications on all the citizens.
Leadership matters. Changes are generally subtle, such as an example of tax percentages. Although, bad decisions by the authorities in power can cause problems ranging from annoyance to hardship. The wrong attitude held by your leadership can affect the current culture where you are, which could affect you and your family.
A recent example for many city governments is that crime is increasing due to bad law changes and lenient prosecutors and lenient judges. Sometimes citizens voted for suggested laws, not understanding the ramifications. Sometimes agendas were pursued that were poorly thought out, resulting in increased crime. Another example might be wasteful spending of your tax dollars. Fiscal irresponsibility could have all kinds of bad ramifications.
It’s actually in your best interest to pursue the ideals of morality in order to be closer to God, who created the universe. Reference Data Point One. We’re all aware of ideals. Ideals hail from both sides of the political spectrum. Many will use ideals as a reference and say, “well I’m a realist”, or “I’m a pragmatist”, or “the ideal is unattainable”. Each has within his- or her-self a conscience – a knowledge of right and wrong, which was put there by God. Sometimes it gets out of whack because of our choices and how we get persuaded or deceived. Fundamentally, wrong leads to ruin, at least eventually. We should seek the faith to try for that moral ideal. History is at stake.
* We want to be judicious about using this word as the lost sheep need rescuing.