site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   32790 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 2025

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The belief can't be "philosophical" or "political" it has to a sincere religious belief.

What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard? If i said that I believe in the supremacy of the biological imperative, and that queer doctrine is blasphemous in this regard, is this considered to be philosophical and therefore unreasonable? What if I said I sincerely believe that the imperative is a facet of God's will? Has my belief now become acceptable in the court's eyes now that I've rhetorically laundered it?

What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard?

Because when the foundation of the relevant rules were written (ie, the Constitution), there was less of a distinction drawn between those categories and approximately everyone was religious. I'll even count Jefferson despite him being (probably? there's better historians than I around here to correct me) the least religious Founder.

There are times that they're given roughly equal weight, like conscientious objection, but even then having a religious framework makes your argument easier because it provides evidence beyond your own biases and desires.

Am I the only one that wants to go back in time with a tablet, and show the American founders a few videos?

I want to do the opposite; go back to the Philadelphia Convention, offer to take a handful of delegates to the future, let them stay for one year, then send them back to tell their fellows about how their ideas play out.

I want to do the opposite; go back to the Philadelphia Convention, offer to take a handful of delegates to the future, let them stay for one year, then send them back to tell their fellows about how their ideas play out.

Which year? Do you think they would interpret Nixon's resignation as checks and balances succeeding or failing?

I'm frankly quite unsure what the effect of "we will create the most powerful empire in the history of man and it will engender sin on scales previously unheard of" would wreak on the XVIIIth century colonial psyche.

They were all romaboos so maybe they'd understand it in that way? But then again it plays into Christian eschatology to an almost frightening degree, and being the progenitors of the Whore of Babylon as hardcore protestants is unsettling to say the least.

I'd tag along on the trip, would be quite Enlightening I'm sure.

Because evangelism by the sword is still quite immediate and present in the modern world and it is a simple pragmatic acceptance of the fact that these beliefs are strong enough for people to die for. (How would a postmodern martyr even look like?)

How would a postmodern martyr even look like?

Sacrificing everyone and everything they hold control over for fleeting pleasures seems the go-to.

Punkish rebellion for its own sake with no actual goals a close second.

What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard?

Legal scholar and philosopher Brian Leiter has a whole book on just that topic, by the somewhat trollish title of Why Tolerate Religion?. His conclusion is the opposite of what people often assume it's going to be based on the title - that all such "claims of conscience" should be treated with equal (and fairly high) respect in this regard, rather than religion having its own special claim to "tolerance" that isn't accorded to anything else.

They are making a legal argument, not a political or moral one; the first amendment to the U.S. constitution calls out religion specifically. This is the flip side of a related issue, that the Constitution (or at least constitutional jurisprudence) does not sufficiently limit the imposition of irreligious totalizing ideologies because they are not an “establishment of religion.” In the same way, violating a philosophical commitment is not “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Applying the religion clauses of the first amendment is already complicated in a country as socially and religiously diverse as America has become. Consider Masterpiece Cakeshop, whose proprietor’s sincere religious beliefs are not in doubt: He won at the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was motivated by demonstrable animus against his religion, and even then the decision was 7–2.

This is the flip side of a related issue, that the Constitution (or at least constitutional jurisprudence) does not sufficiently limit the imposition of irreligious totalizing ideologies because they are not an “establishment of religion.”

I'm glad that you brought this up because I thought of this as well while writing my post but didn't know how to word it. It has been rightly observed that the woke package of beliefs and its adherents could be interpreted as religious in nature and have utterly bypassed government safeguards w/r/t church and state.

he won only insofar as he was immediately targeted for other lawsuits on similar grounds. Yay.

Yeah, Colorado was so openly hateful they got to dodge the substantive ruling. Maybe they'll get there someday.

I'd wager that the difference is largely practical.

If there's a large group of people that believe in a source of objective truth and mortality deeper than any human logic, no propaganda will sway them from its commandments. And if you try, you get martyrs and religious warfare. So, the government lets them swing their fists until they hit someone else's nose.

For non-thesists, however, while their beliefs can be self-consistent within an axiomatic system by definition there's no source of irrational/beyond-rational (depending on your viewpoint) certainty in the axioms they use. Therefore, the government can reasonably bet on trying to shift their axioms-- especially since they're not in any sort of community that might organize retaliation.

(If atheists get together to decide on objective moral principles they're going to set in stone and propagate forever... then congratulations, they've re-invented religion and become entitled to the same protections. See: the "Church of Satan" people.)

And this system works much better at making religious people productive members of society(which they by and large want to do) than Laicite or totalizing state ideology.

It was clearly practical historically. I can see why a polity of a certain age would have specifically enshrined religious protections during its founding.

I'm not sure how practical it is now given the decline of religion and the rise of religions that are totally servile to CURRENT_YEAR mores and the existence of secular ideologies like Marxism and nationalism that are clearly capable of motivating stubborn behavior.

What is the difference between a sincere belief derived from a religious framework vs a sincere belief derived from a philosophical one and why is religion given more weight in this regard? If i said that I believe in the supremacy of the biological imperative, and that queer doctrine is blasphemous in this regard, is this considered to be philosophical and therefore unreasonable?

My understanding is that, legally speaking, religious belief and expression is a uniquely protected category in the US. Political or philosophical beliefs are not. If you oppose queer doctrine on political grounds, then you can't expect SCOTUS to grant you their time. Religious beliefs grant you special protections from the government.

What if I said I sincerely believe that the imperative is a facet of God's will? Has my belief now become acceptable in the court's eyes now that I've rhetorically laundered it?

I think a metaphysical grounding helps your case. Unless I'm mistaken, this is one of the ways to differentiate a religious and philosophical belief. But I know someone will have a more complete answer for you. This seems like it should be one of the more thoroughly investigated ideas in US law.

Philosophy is “because I said so”.

Religion is “because my God said so”.

Rightly or wrongly, more weight has historically been accorded to the latter.

Rightly or wrongly, more weight has historically been accorded to the latter.

I suppose it's more difficult to game the system with an avowed commitment to the facially irrational than with a claim of independent thought above the law.

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