site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   35130 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 5, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hope you can see why drawing a box around all the confusing, falsifiable bits and saying “yup those are the metaphors” might be unsatisfying.

Definitely! As I've said, a lot of the ideas we have discussed aren't satisfying to me. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Now, with that being said, would note there are other falsifiable bits (e.g. the existence of Pilate, or Christ Himself) that Christianity is pretty unambiguously correct on, so I would contest the idea that Christianity draws a box around all falsifiable bits. Some falsifiable bits have just resolved in Christianity's favor, so nobody contests them.

But more to the point, I'm not sure that the default mode of interpreting a confusing 1st century apocalyptic passage in Scripture should be modern literalism! I don't think that this is special pleading on the part of Christians, either, Jewish pre-Christian literature has a lot of similarly (and intentionally) vague passages – Christ is quoting Daniel in this one – and I think that reading them symbolically/non-literally predates Christ. So I'm cautious about reading the text and taking the most obvious and straightforward surface-level interpretation (particularly in a translation) as the correct one. (That's part of what's been very interesting and helpful to me about this discussion, is getting a feel for why people think it should be interpreted this way. As I think I mentioned, I do not have a settled opinion).

If it makes you feel better, I (and Christians more broadly) don't just apply this to disputed stuff like this with there is arguably a falsifiability question at play – I think, for instance, that Christ's telling His disciples that the bread at Passover is His body isn't literal – and in fact I think it's a (Trinitarian) reference to the afikomen. This isn't clear from the text itself, you have to understand Jewish culture accept that Christ isn't speaking literally. But obviously that interpretation could be wrong and it wouldn't have any real bearing on the truth of Christianity. Broader point here being – Christians often interpret Scripture metaphorically even when it's not related to one of the "falsifiable bits."

Can you offer anything to better represent “modern scholarship?”

Not on this issue! But on some other issues that I used to track with a bit more interest, my recollection was that there were definite movements in the field since the early 2000s. Perhaps that does not generalize.

But more to the point, I'm not sure that the default mode of interpreting a confusing 1st century apocalyptic passage in Scripture should be modern literalism! I don't think that this is special pleading on the part of Christians, either, Jewish pre-Christian literature has a lot of similarly (and intentionally) vague passages – Christ is quoting Daniel in this one – and I think that reading them symbolically/non-literally predates Christ. So I'm cautious about reading the text and taking the most obvious and straightforward surface-level interpretation (particularly in a translation) as the correct one. (That's part of what's been very interesting and helpful to me about this discussion, is getting a feel for why people think it should be interpreted this way. As I think I mentioned, I do not have a settled opinion).

Thanks for this! Actually helped me settle some of my own doubts here. Well said.

I'm glad to hear that! Really appreciate you taking the time to reply, that is very encouraging.

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