site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   41888 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

why shouldn’t they be willing to live selflessly for a Christ that has no supernatural aspects?

A Christ shorn of his supernatural aspects is just a charismatic ascetic who bamboozled some poor and sick people by saying spooky unverifiable nonsense. Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero, nor even a stellar lifestyle role model. (He died unmarried, childless, and with seemingly no wealth, possessions, or notable professional achievements.)

I am facing this exact problem right now as I am trying to seek a religious tradition and community. Reading the Bible, I am struck yet again by how little the figure of Christ resonates with me. If one cannot bring oneself to take the leap of faith to believe that he truly was exactly what he said he was and all of his prophecies are of deep import, then it’s easy to interpret the Gospels and Acts as the record of a bunch of fairly reasonable local institutions displaying a quite healthy fear of a revolutionary doctrine urging their populace to leave their jobs and families to go follow a madman ascetic into the desert.

The faith which I’m currently earnestly investigating (Mormonism) believes that Jesus Christ was sent to earth to, among other things, set the example of the Perfect Man; humans can progress toward divinity by striving to emulate the example set by him and to try to become more Christ-like. But the best I can muster regarding Christ is that he was an example, among others, of a life path worth emulating. Certainly he has admirable characteristics — his charitable spirit toward the downtrodden, his interpersonal leadership skills, his obvious self-control and abstention from vice — but we absolutely do not want every individual in our society to attempt to emulate his life or deeds as closely as possible. There are other figures, historical or religious/mythological, who ought to be seen as equally valid life models worthy of emulation.

It might be worth reading the story of the rich young man in context. Not the tail end liberals like to point to on the internet about voluntary poverty; what Jesus’ teachings for average people are demanding. A lot of ‘keep my commands’ and not ‘wander the earth as a barefoot missionary’. We have Franciscans for that.

He can retain all titles, just understood in a different sense than the literal. The power of his love and wisdom makes him king of kings; his obedience and piety made him the son of God; his all-importance makes him Lord; and so forth. You do not have to read the gospel in a literal lense, in fact the earliest interpretations find non-literal meanings in every literal detail (eg the Samaritan woman’s five husbands refer to the five books of the Torah; the paralytic refers to spiritual paralysis).

If the gospel is a narrative of stories which indicate something deeper than the literal, then this makes it all the more the Word of God. It doesn’t make it untrue. Is it untrue that Christ cured the blind? But his wisdom has formed in mankind a vision of our ultimate altruistic priorities, billions of people have been cured of emotional or spiritual blindness from his life, and even the very Body of Christ today heals thousands of blind people yearly through charitable organizations. Is this less miraculous than a magical power? Seems pretty miraculous to me.

Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero

Teaching the essence of moral wisdom while being hunted down by the leaders of your own nation is pretty heroic to me. Even just defeating the temptation to be pseudo intellectual and verbose is an act of heroism for intellectuals. So for a person who spent his life gaining wisdom to simplify his learning in digestible parables with incredible metaphorical import while living in poverty and genuinely seeking to improve the world? That’s more miraculous than rising from the dead. And doing all of this faced with the world’s worst torture, with devotion and obedience and love? I can’t think of a better hero.

nor even a stellar lifestyle role model

I don’t think Christ is supposed to be a role model for a lifestyle in that sense, but instead his inner life (spirit) is supposed to be imitated, and in regards to moral and wellbeing concerns. The ability to “carry one’s cross daily” is about inner life. Seeking the Kingdom of God is about inner life, perhaps. The inner life of Christ, namely the love and obedience and goodwill, is universally important. You can be a Christian and all the while imitate the fitness mindset of David Goggins. But the Christian part of you should drive your conscience and you should remember that you don’t want to be like Goggins in any area outside the gym.

that he was an example, among others, of a life path worth emulating

I think there’s cause to believe that, even devoid of the supernatural, a Christ-focused community is going to be greater than a community focused on any other figure. This is because civilization is driven by cooperation, and everything about Christ promotes cooperation, from the actual wisdom to the empathy of the cross to the fear of being a Judas or Pilate or Pharisee. This is a selfless hero who didn’t seek glory (or rather, he sought it only from God)* and simply desired the substantive good of Mankind. By absorbing the meaning of his story you can be a better unit of human, to put it in the driest way possible.

The faith which I’m currently earnestly investigating (Mormonism)

Not much to add here, just wanted to say if you have any questions about whatever I'm a Mormon.

A Christ shorn of his supernatural aspects is just a charismatic ascetic who bamboozled some poor and sick people by saying spooky unverifiable nonsense. Judged purely by his personality characteristics and by the very limited record of his non-supernatural deeds, he does not come off as some great hero, nor even a stellar lifestyle role model. (He died unmarried, childless, and with seemingly no wealth, possessions, or notable professional achievements.)

This is very core to the Christian mythos. Let me quote from a recent article I read on Christ and Nothing:

In any event, the purpose behind these indefensibly broad pronouncements—however elliptically pursued—is to aid in recalling how shatteringly subversive Christianity was of so many of the certitudes of the world it entered, and how profoundly its exclusive fidelity to the God of Christ transformed that world. This is, of course, no more than we should expect, if we take the New Testament’s Paschal triumphalism to heart: “Now is the judgment of this world, now will the prince of this world be cast out” (John 12:31); “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33); he is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion” and all things are put “under his feet” (Ephesians 1:21-2); “having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15); “he led captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8); and so on. Still, we can largely absorb Scripture’s talk of the defeat of the devil, the angels of the nations, and the powers of the air, and yet fail to recognize how radically the Gospels reinterpreted (or, as Nietzsche would say, “transvalued”) everything in the light of Easter.

The example of this I find most striking is the account John’s Gospel gives of the dialogue between Christ and Pilate (John 18:28-19:12). Nietzsche, the quixotic champion of the old standards, thought jesting Pilate’s “What is truth?” to be the only moment of actual nobility in the New Testament, the wry taunt of an acerbic ironist unimpressed by the pathetic fantasies of a deranged peasant. But one need not share Nietzsche’s sympathies to take his point; one can certainly see what is at stake when Christ, scourged and mocked, is brought before Pilate a second time: the latter’s “Whence art thou?” has about it something of a demand for a pedigree, which might at least lend some credibility to the claims Christ makes for himself; for want of which, Pilate can do little other than pronounce his truth: “I have power to crucify thee” (which, to be fair, would under most circumstances be an incontrovertible argument).

It is worth asking ourselves what this tableau, viewed from the vantage of pagan antiquity, would have meant. A man of noble birth, representing the power of Rome, endowed with authority over life and death, confronted by a barbarous colonial of no name or estate, a slave of the empire, beaten, robed in purple, crowned with thorns, insanely invoking an otherworldly kingdom and some esoteric truth, unaware of either his absurdity or his judge’s eminence. Who could have doubted where, between these two, the truth of things was to be found? But the Gospel is written in the light of the resurrection, which reverses the meaning of this scene entirely. If God’s truth is in fact to be found where Christ stands, the mockery visited on him redounds instead upon the emperor, all of whose regal finery, when set beside the majesty of the servile shape in which God reveals Himself, shows itself to be just so many rags and briars.

This slave is the Father’s eternal Word, whom God has vindicated, and so ten thousand immemorial certainties are unveiled as lies: the first become last, the mighty are put down from their seats and the lowly exalted, the hungry are filled with good things while the rich are sent empty away. Nietzsche was quite right to be appalled. Almost as striking, for me, is the tale of Peter, at the cock’s crow, going apart to weep. Nowhere in the literature of pagan antiquity, I assure you, had the tears of a rustic been regarded as worthy of anything but ridicule; to treat them with reverence, as meaningful expressions of real human sorrow, would have seemed grotesque from the perspective of all the classical canons of good taste. Those wretchedly subversive tears, and the dangerous philistinism of a narrator so incorrigibly vulgar as to treat them with anything but contempt, were most definitely signs of a slave revolt in morality, if not quite the one against which Nietzsche inveighed—a revolt, moreover, that all the ancient powers proved impotent to resist.

You may also want to read some Girardian thought on the matter of how Christ can be so impactful while being so weak. I have thoroughly enjoyed Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads.

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