@MadMonzer's banner p

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC 

				
User ID: 896


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
MadMonzer


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 896


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Strike me as inherently pejorative negative definitions.




They weren't intended as definitions - they were intended to be an empirical observation about how large American non-denominational churches (my two-bullet definition of "megachurch") tend to differ from other churches. Megachurch theology is usually different from traditional denominational Protestant theology in ways which are controversial, and I tried to describe both sides of the controversy, probably badly. I agree that I was being perjorative about the practice of allowing pastors to get super-rich off congregant donations - essentially all other Christian traditions think that a pastor earning more than a doctor is per se problematic.


FWIW, I think the word "megachurch" is perjorative in that it is mostly used by people who disapprove of the underlying phenomenon (Blue Tribers who object because megachurches are Red-coded, and denominational Christians who object because they often promote heresy)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You mean that in a country with universal conscription, everyone is a combatant until officially discharged in their 60s? Well, that would certainly be convenient for the attacker.




Yes - off-duty soldiers are combatants. You have the option of placing part of your population ("civilians") hors de combat in an somewhat permanent way such that they benefit from the principle of distinction, but Israel chooses not to do this because they gain a military advantage from having the whole military-age population (including, unusually, women) available to fight at short notice - particularly as Hamas doesn't abide by the Geneva Conventions anyway. The rules don't exist to make war fair - they exist to prevent acts of wanton destruction with a humanitarian cost that grossly exceeds the military benefit gained. Back when the first ius in bello treaties were being negotiated by people who were comfortable that some wars were morally justified (I am most familiar with the negotiations leading to the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions because Barbara Tuchman writes about them in A Distant Mirror) everyone in the room understood that if you tried to ban sound military tactics the ban wouldn't stick. And attacking enemy soldiers while they are partying would be a sound military tactic, if Hamas was actually trying to win the war in a non-perfidious way.




By that standard, are we conceding that Israelis shooting anyone on the Palestinian side of the fence who could possibly hold a rifle or an explosive device is shooting combatants?




I would say it is closer to the truth that whenever Israel attacks Palestinians they are in a legal grey area because Hamas perfidiously* mix civilian and military targets in a way which makes it impossible for Israel to comply with the principle of distinction. The bastards hide military targets in hospitals, for crissake. The rules on precisely how you can lawfully attack a perfidious enemy are underspecified for the obvious reasons.


* I am using the term primarily in its technical legal sense as defined by the Geneva Conventions, although I think Hamas are perfidious in the ordinary English sense of the word as well.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As a working definition, I would say a church is a megachurch if


    

  • it is not affiliated to a denomination
    • 

  • more than 1000 people watch the same sermons in real-time (either in person or by videolink)
    • 



But the interesting thing about megachurch Christianity as practiced in Red America is the distinctive theology and Church polity it produces.


The theology is de facto based around the "born-again" experience and the personal relationship between individual believers and Jesus (if you are being polite) or about being gay for Jesus (if you are being rude from a male perspective) or about Jesus wanting to be your perfect romance-novel boyfriend (if you are being rude from a female perspective).


The Church polity is based around the effectively total-within-their-Church authority of individual charismatic lead pastors who are openly permitted to keep a significant percentage of the collection plate for their personal consumption.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
People who self-identify as unhyphenated Americans are disproportionately likely to be Appalachian hillbillies, which means they are probably more likely to be descended from transHajnal Europeans (namely the Scots Irish) than other Euro-American subgroups.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They fund Hamas and Hezbollah




That would make them hostile to Israel, which is not America.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
@coffee_enjoyer is pointing out that most of the people at the music festival attacked by Hamas were Israeli reservists, and therefore combatants. (It is a truth universally acknowledged by any society which still understands war that combatants don't become civilians just because they aren't currently attacking.) There is a colourable argument that the music festival (or any other gathering of military-age Israelis most of whom will inevitably by IDF reservists) was a legitimate military target - that is the nature of a militarised society. (Even if you accept this argument, it was still a war crime by Hamas because of what they did to the women)


But like every other discussion of ius in bello on the thread, this is quibbling. I think we all agree that this is fundamentally a ius ad bello argument - does the US have a (secret) cause sufficiently compelling that it is worth going to war, with all the horrors that entails for individual human beings on both sides, to achieve it? The US can also be blamed for launching a perfidious surprise attach, but that seems to be SOP nowadays - the last time someone actually bothered to declare war before attacking was WW2.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Separately, since you have used the phrase "Palestinian Territories," can you please tell me (1) which land areas constitute "Palestinian Territories" (e.g. do they include Ramallah, Gaza City, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.); and (2) how those areas came to be "Palestinian Territories"? TIA




The term "Palestinian Territories" has a widely-understood standard meaning which includes Ramallah, Gaza City, Hebron, may or may not include East Jerusalem, and clearly does not include West Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. You know this as well as I do. These territories became "Palestinian Territories" by virtue of being the parts of Mandate Palestine which remained inhabited by Christian and Muslim Arabs who referred to themselves as "Palestinian" after the Israeli War of Independence. I suspect you know that too.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Talking smack about an unfriendly country doesn't constitute waging war against them. Building nukes may justify a pre-emptive war as a matter of sound policy, but it doesn't as a matter of international law, and it certainly doesn't make you the aggressor if someone does wage a pre-emptive war against you - as a matter of ordinary English meanings of words, building nukes does not constitute aggression unless they are used.


You have a better case on point (1) - Iran is indeed supporting proxies which are attacking Israel (and indeed committing war crimes against Israeli civilians). But they are not an aggressor here - they skate on two technicalities.


    

  • The attacks on Israel aren't by Iranians and don't come from Iranian territory. There is a lot of state practice (very much including the US and Israel) of funding plausibly deniable proxies to engage in military action against countries you are at peace with. I don't think the involvement of US government officials in NORAID makes the US the aggressor in the IRA's war against my country. Iran funding Hamas and Hezbullah is a hostile act against Israel, and a despicable one given the circumstances in the current year, but it isn't military aggression in the way the term is usually used in practice.
    • 

  • Hamas and Hezbullah's attacks on Israel are not aggressive. Both are resistance movements that started their wars when Israel was in belligerent occupation of the Palestinian Territories and southern Lebanon respectively. If NATO funds resistance to Russia in occupied Ukraine, that is a hostile act against Russia but not an aggressive one. Hezbullah has continued their defensive war against Israel long after Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory and have been told to stop by the UNSC, which makes their continued war against Israel wrong, but it doesn't make it aggression.
    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And notably the one party in the Iran conflict for whom this stuff is - rightly or wrongly - somewhat existential is Israel and they are ultimately pretty accepting of casualties.




The war is obviously more existential for Iran than it is for any of the aggressors. The destruction of the Iranian state is a plausible outcome, indeed it may be Netanyahu's goal. And a million excess deaths (mostly due to starvation and disease) is a reasonable estimate of the likely human cost of a failed state in Iran.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Birthright Citizenship at the Supreme Court
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes - if you adopt the standard modern legal meaning of "jurisdiction" then illegal aliens (and their children) are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while physically present in the country, but tribally enrolled Indians (and their tribally enrolled children) physically present on a reservation are only partially subject to it.


That "Indians not taxed" are even more foreign than resident foreigners is the basis of the OG apportionment clause.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In my country we call it Danegeld.


I don't know if Trump thinks he can stop the tide rising with a wave of his regal hand, but he certainly expects his sycophantic courtiers to tell him that he can.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I've yet to hear anyone explain what major concession Delcy made that Maduro was obstinate on.




The darkly cynical answer (that Rodriguez has allowed a substantial amount of Venezuelan oil money to be paid into a bank account in Qatar which is controlled by Donald Trump but operates outside the US laws concerning custody of government funds) remains the most plausible.


Before Maduro was taken out, Trump was imposing a naval blockade against Venezuelan oil exports. After Maduro is taken out, Trump permits oil exports as long as he gets to keep a large part of the money. It looks like Maduro was not willing to accept those terms, and Rodriguez clearly is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Who's to say grandma can't also be a thirst trap?




Cookies sate hunger, not thirst.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But home computers, with social media and video games, are really the first thing to be so engaging as to make this extreme mass consumption viable on a large scale, where it consumes both free time, work, and school.




At 115+ IQ, probably true. But the 100-average masses were watching TV for n hours a day for large enough values of n to support a moral panic back in the 1980's.


Heck - there are middle-aged women with >100 IQs who could spend 4+ hours a day reading romance novels and Readers' Digest short fiction if they had access to enough of it - which is almost as passive as TV-watching. The moral panic about housewives reading novels instead of engaging in the types of community-building activities housewives with free time engaged in was also real - my mother-in-law was not allowed to read novels as a child except when set by the school.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
6yo uses Youtube Kids on iPad so we have to approve each channel individually. 9yo mostly drives himself, and is primarily interested in educational channels when he is less tired and Minecraft slop when he is knackered, which is pretty harmless. He has unintentionally conditioned the algorithm only to show Minecraft slop if he lets it autoplay.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the point of "screens" as a concept is to tie in the current moral panic about children's internet use with the earlier moral panic about children watching too much TV.


I remember someone trying to write a serious analysis of what "screens" is actually about and pointing out that there were two different issues:


    

  1. The child is staring at a wall. "Screen time", going all the way back to TV, is replacing activities like outdoor play and in-person socialisation that are more beneficial.
    2. 

  2. The writing on the wall. The screen is displaying content, and that content may be harmful. (It may also be educational, but fear sells better). And here there is a massive increase in variance from TV (the vast majority of which was harmless slop) to the internet, which includes everything from MIT Open Courseware to pro-eating disorder websites.
    3. 



Moral panics about trash media go back a long way and long predate screens - there was a similar panic about mass-market novels, for example. And they almost never make the distinction between the two issues. My sons spend "too much" time on screens, but I follow what they are doing, and it is net educational. If I thought screen time was stopping them socialising in person (they can't do much of that because autism) I would curtail it. It is making it harder to get them to do outdoor exercise.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Back when the PLO was uncomplicatedly a terrorist organisation, the IRA, ETA and PLO saw each other as ideological allies and almost certainly cooperated operationally.


The dominant strain of Irish nationalism is anti-British first and foremost, and therefore anti-Western Civ by implication, which is why it is so hard to organise a right-populist party in Ireland, despite the obvious unmet demand for anti-immigration politics.