site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   3997 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 12, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just saw this bit of news:

https://religionnews.com/2025/05/12/episcopal-church-ends-refugee-resettlement-citing-moral-opposition-to-resettling-white-afrikaners/]https://religionnews.com/2025/05/12/episcopal-church-ends-refugee-resettlement-citing-moral-opposition-to-resettling-white-afrikaners/

with the title of "Episcopal Church refuses to resettle white Afrikaners, ends partnership with US government". Thinking that it was a case of sensationalizing the tittle to attract clicks to a more moderate news article I opened the page. Oh boy was I disappointed.

While the majority of the article was more as a moralizing plea for the resumption of resettlement programs, the beginning at least was what it said in the title. The episcopal church will end its partnership with the US government due to being asked to benefit white south africans.

...we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.

Why are they doing that?, in their words, because they are pro racial justice:

In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step


It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years.

Maybe the next step in the Trump Administrations should be to show that welfare programs benefit a majority of white people or something like that?



Link to the letter from the Church - https://www.episcopalchurch.org/publicaffairs/letter-from-presiding-bishop-sean-rowe-on-episcopal-migration-ministries/

Reading the letter, I'm struck by the notion that the way they talk about their operations is not so different than what an international corporation does. Bits like

We have served nearly 110,000 refugees during this time, many of whom are now American citizens and beloved members of our communities, workplaces, and neighborhoods.

Just substitute refugees by clients and then it makes sense why they are so gung ho about adding more bodies through this kind of partnerships. They win twice, once by getting money from the federal gevernment and once more with some of those resetled contributing to the church itself, be it through economic donations or voluntary work.

We are working with the affected staff members to provide extensive outplacement services and severance packages.

in reference to their winding down of their resettlement services makes me think Corpo. And it's logical if one thinks about it for a moment, but for some reason it never occurred to me that churches aren't that diferent from other NGO's.

While our public-private partnership as a refugee resettlement agency is no longer viable.

Finally, this last bit is maybe the real reason why they are finishing their services and not just out right anti-white racism, but it is curious that it is buried in the body of the letter and the woke justification is front and center in the opening paragraphs. But one salient point against this theory of mine is that it looks like they are ending services due to the white Afrikaneers, not because the pause in the resetlement programs. This is further reinforced when the original news article mentions that

Four of the faith groups have since filed two separate lawsuits, one of which recently resulted in a ruling that should have restarted the program.

so it sounds to me, like these NGO's were hopping to lawfare their way into opening the money faucet at the through again, but at least for the Episcopal church dealing with whites with "preferential treatment" is too much.

I could be wrong about their motivations, but the impression I get from the Episcopal Church's decision is something along the lines of "The administration is aiding white people who are or might be in danger of their lives, while telling people of colour in similar danger that they are obligated to stay in their own countries and die. This suggests that the administration believes that the life of a white person matters more than that of a person of colour. This belief is a grave sin, and we refuse to be complicit in it."

I'm not surprised that this is couched in NGO language. I'm a little surprised they mention denying white South Africans resettlement on political grounds. I see three reasons:

  • Racial Justice. “In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church...” Which I guess is a hat tip to Desmond Tutu? At least that connection is made by AP reporting.

  • Other refugees exist that are/were more worthy of resettlement. Surely white South Africans could potentially be worthy of the same good deeds the church has afforded so many others?

  • The faucet was closed. The program is no longer feasible to run.

The last one seems like a winner. Were I the Episcopal church I would have protested the faucet being closed. I might even point at many other refugees in dire need of resettlement. I would have made those two statements after agreeing to resettle these people.

AP does report that another refugee agency will take the 49 South Africans:

Another faith-based refugee agency, Church World Service, says it is open to serving the South African arrivals.

“We are concerned that the U.S. Government has chosen to fast-track the admission of Afrikaners, while actively fighting court orders to provide life-saving resettlement to other refugee populations who are in desperate need of resettlement,” Rick Santos, CWS president and CEO, said in a statement.

He added that the action proves the government knows how to screen and process refugees quickly. “Despite the Administration’s actions, CWS remains committed to serving all eligible refugee populations seeking safety in the United States, including Afrikaners who are eligible for services,” he said. “Our faith compels us to serve each person in our care with dignity and compassion.”

This is a more appropriate protest response. I am curious about the the 49 South Africans. Hopefully somebody finds and interviews one.

The faucet was closed. The program is no longer feasible to run.

They are protesting the faucet being closed, by doing the only thing that they can do to hurt this administration: talk about it, and refuse to provide services the admin actually wants.

So far, what I have seen on X of them are just photos by lefties mocking their fatness and how they couldn't have been suffering too much if they were that fat.

EDIT.- Found the tweet in question:

https://x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/1921909455429439569

A lot of people wonder why Curtis Yarvin is taken seriously. There’s been a lot of drama lately about whether Moldbug Sold Out, or whether there is any reason to take him seriously. A lot of this comes from an overfocusing on his monarchy prescriptions, but this really misses a lot of the deeper intellectual content. Social justice came from American Mainline Protestantism. They are the same thing.

I think phrasing it as "Progressivism is atheistic puritanical christianity" captures some nuance that "it came from protestantism" doesn't.

Actually, I think the nuance is lost. Social justice warriors weren’t simply inspired by Christianity. They don’t have similarities by coincidence. They are a direct evolutionary branch of mainline Protestantism. There is path dependency.

While my first impulse is to deny and defend the church, with examples like these and seeing lady bishops and whatnot in some denominations, I can't really deny the reality that there is truth to that statement. Always a disappointment to see the religion of the Crusades being so limp wristed with statements like

As Christians, we must be guided not by political vagaries, but by the sure and certain knowledge that the kingdom of God is revealed to us in the struggles of those on the margins. Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and we must follow that command.

The episcopal church has always been more or less defined as the liberal branch of the Christian communion least defined by doctrinal concerns.

Was this true 350 years ago?

Ok, you activated an "urquan has too many theological opinions for his own good" moment, but I remember a research project I did for my historiography class in college on Anglicanism in America that gave me a decent answer to this question.

My original question was asking about how American Anglicans on the eve of the Revolution dealt with the idea of rebelling against the Supreme Governor of their Church: the British Monarch. Perhaps this was a silly question to ask, but I seriously wondered how you could deal with the cognitive dissonance of belonging to a church whose governor -- not "head", that's what Henry VIII called himself before someone told Elizabeth that calling yourself "head of the Church" sounds like usurping Jesus Christ -- was the very King you were calling a tyrant. I was aware that many of the Founding Fathers were Anglicans, so this seemed like a fruitful area of study.

I focused my research on Anglicans in Virginia (where several of the Anglican Founders were from) in the 1700s, to narrow in on that question.

And I found that, not only was the exact question "how did the Anglican Founders deal with the cognitive dissonance of rebelling against the Supreme Governor of the Church of England" had never been posed in the historical community, but that actually the subject of intense debate among scholars was the much more alarming question, Did Anglicans in Virginia actually care about their religion at all?

I recall one researcher, who wrote an entire monograph about a specific Anglican lady who had a Bible and a journal where she wrote devotional texts about God. And the researcher treated this like she'd found the Holy Grail -- look, everyone, I found an Anglican woman who seems like she had a heartfelt faith in God! It was a revelation. Stop the presses! We have to rewrite the textbooks! Maybe at least one Anglican in Virginia actually did believe in God!

That underscored to me how serious the rot was in the Anglican Church in America, even back then; it really did seem like Anglicans saw the church as a social club, and took or left portions of their faith as it served their other interests. Actually taking religion seriously just wasn't something in the vocabulary of most Anglicans at the time. That was something for those weird revivalists or those Wesleyans with their method.

Having met some Episcopalians, I really do feel like I can take their approach to faith and just push it back a few hundred years, and get a good sense of the scorn or bewilderment with which their WASP ancestors would have viewed intense religious devotion. Or worse, expelled basing your morals on an unchanging read of the Scriptures instead of just doing what's high-status.

Relevant to the subject of morals, and to the larger topic at hand -- about racism -- many American Anglicans at the time were slaveholders and it was very common for churches to be racially segregated, or for blacks not to be allowed in the church at all. So there's a bit to the Episcopal Church's posture that really is a "we know we were the epicenter of this, we're really sorry."

As far as I was able to discern, in this very limited research project (that included little to no primary source work), the only effect that the American Revolution had on the American Anglican Church was that they changed their name to "The Episcopal Church," to get rid of the whole "Anglo" thing. ("We promise we're good patriots!") Or wait, was it the Protestant Episcopal Church at that time? I think the "Protestant" got nixed at one point because it sounded too much like having a solid theological opinion.

It's also true that a huge number of Loyalists were Anglicans, and so I'm sure if I devoted myself to a more serious investigation of the time period I could find evidence of Anglicans' religious affiliation influencing their views on the American Revolution. Many of these people fled to Canada as it became clear the patriots were winning, so a true telling of the story of Anglicanism in North America (not to be confused with the "Anglican Church in North America", a modern body, that split from Canterbury over gay marriage and is essentially a missionary project of African Anglicans, because as much as Episcopalians like to talk about their tight links to Africa, the Africans think they're apostate for their strong support of SSM) would have to talk about Canada too.

I'm pretty mean to Episcopalians, but really, I guess I'm just as bewildered about them as they would be about me, God bless them.

If you really want to get me started on things that are interesting about Anglicanism, ask me about the Oxford Movement or the "Anglican Continuum." That's where the story becomes fascinating, in both the way that a plane crash and a mathematical equation are fascinating. But you have to find the Anglicans who barely want to be Anglicans before I start getting really interested. (The ACNA people I mentioned above are continuing Anglicans, they're trying to be more Anglican than the Anglicans, and some of them ordain women. Confessional Protestantism in America has had two big waves of schism, once in the 60s-70s over women's ordination and now in the past 10-15 years over gay marriage, and I'm sure at this point all the Catholics and Orthodox in the audience are going "man am I glad we have The Tradition.")

All that to say -- I think Anglicans ~300 years ago had all the seeds of their present situation already planted, in British America more than in Britain. Anglicanism to me has always seemed like the Church of the Compromise rather than a church with a strong set of beliefs, and the American Anglican Church was so eager to compromise with the prevailing winds that they changed their name to obscure their origins. There's an old quip of Oscar Wilde that seems apropos: "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone – for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do."

In that sense I don't see their collapse into social liberalism as particularly surprising, in the way that I find the descent of mainstream Presbyterianism and Methodism (which, to be sure, was an Anglican revival movement at first, though it's always had a more independent nature in America) surprising, given the history of those churches in firm confession and rigorous devotion. But I'm sure that's another story for another time, one that you're no doubt more well-equipped to tell than I am.

How are Christians being "limp wristed" because they're taking a stance about helping the poor? Jesus's teachings are very often about helping the poor and dispossessed: e.g. the parable of the good samaritan, Matthew 19:21:

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

No, it's totally on-brand and correct for anyone that follows the teachings of Jesus to care about the poor.

Here the Episcopal church is taking a stand against the refugee resettlement program (resources allocated for the poor) being perverted to help those that are actually not in need (Afrikaners are generally not very poor); to the detriment of refugees actually in need:

It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years. I am saddened and ashamed that many of the refugees who are being denied entrance to the United States are brave people who worked alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service to our country. I also grieve that victims of religious persecution, including Christians, have not been granted refuge in recent months.

You're just using "based Crusade Christianity" as a political tool to bash your enemies with, without any regard for the teachings of Jesus.

In fairness, this comment is itself arguing against my political opponents with Christianity, but at least I actually respect its teachings.

How are Christians being "limp wristed" because they're taking a stance about helping the poor?

a refugee is someone in danger in their home country, not someone that is poor, isn't he? where are you taking this conflation of refugee with poor from?


e.g. the parable of the good samaritan, Matthew 19:21:

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

No, it's totally on-brand and correct for anyone that follows the teachings of Jesus to care about the poor.

Here the Episcopal church is taking a stand against the refugee resettlement program (resources allocated for the poor) being perverted to help those that are actually not in need (Afrikaners are generally not very poor); to the detriment of refugees actually in need:

Isn't that referring to your neighbors and people like you?. And that tidbit about "resources allocated for the poor" should be "to the persecuted". I think, your whole line of argumentation falls apart when we take that into consideration.


You're just using "based Crusade Christianity" as a political tool to bash your enemies with, without any regard for the teachings of Jesus.

In fairness, this comment is itself arguing against my political opponents with Christianity, but at least I actually respect its teachings.

2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

a refugee is someone in danger in their home country, not someone that is poor, isn't he? where are you taking this conflation of refugee with poor from?

Most refugees are poor, because countries with armed conflicts and political persecution are largely dysfunctional and poor. Afrikaners are very much an exception to this.

Isn't that referring to your neighbors and people like you?. Yes, people like you, like every other human is like you. Humans are all created in the image of God and are all thus equally morally worthy.

Definitely not just people of your same ethnicity.

And that tidbit about "resources allocated for the poor" should be "to the persecuted". I think, your whole line of argumentation falls apart when we take that into consideration.

Wealthy people fleeing persecution can take care of themselves, the money is largely useful for the poor (and persecuted yes).

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with your last verse.

Most refugees are poor, because countries with armed conflicts and political persecution are largely dysfunctional and poor. Afrikaners are very much an exception to this.

yes, but that doesn't mean that being poor is a requeriment to be a refugee, again, where are you getting your definition on this?


Definitely not just people of your same ethnicity.

I would assume the love your neighbor bit refers to if not same etnicity, at least the near group.


Wealthy people fleeing persecution can take care of themselves, the money is largely useful for the poor (and persecuted yes).

I don't think money will save you from a government that wants you death or destitute.


I don't understand the point you're trying to make with your last verse.

just to show that not everything is passive resistance with Christianity.

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