site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   34244 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My goodness even on the Motte Catholics are insufferable. I don't mean that mainly as a personal attack, that's my observation of every Catholic I encounter - an absolute arrogance and a tendency to twist things to support the required dogmas of the Roman church. I don't entirely blame you, since the church requires you to believe these things it's only natural to reason backwards from the dogmas to the evidence, but it's so frustrating to see here. Anyway:

  • Christ, after he returned from the grave, entrusted all of the apostles with spreading the gospel to all the nations. Peter had no unique status, indeed he was overruled by Paul, and in Acts James (the bishop of Jerusalem) clearly had the final word on disagreements. The raising up of Peter comes from much later in history when the bishop of Rome (the capital of the world at the time) sought to justify taking greater authority to himself.
  • The writings of the church fathers make it abundantly clear that the books that would be assembled into the new testament were generally accepted by the mid second century. Framing the council of Nicea as assembling the Bible is a false framing designed to push back against the authority of scripture, by pretending that its authority comes from the council rather than from scripture's nature as the word of God.
  • As to the reformation, I don't know if your nonsense even deserves the dignity of a response, but... The purpose of the reformation was to fix the errors that has risen in the church, primarily indulgences, only providing the eucharist once a year, and refusing to translate the bible so people could read it. Following from this, a whole mess of theologians identified areas of theology where the church had arguably erred. And so, the Roman church, being even then truly arrogant, decided to kick anyone out of the church who questioned them. Funny enough, in the 'counter reformation' the Catholics did in fact fix indulgences, start giving regular eucharist, and eventually supported bible translations too! Weird huh? Rome refuses to budge on the other theological issues because (and this is not a charicature) they think the church is perfect and can never have made a mistake. Of course the Orthodox (who also left because of the arrogance of the Pope) say the same about their church. It's only Protestants who believe that all these different churches can have true Christians within them - Catholics at the time of the reformation thought the Orthodox were all damned for not following the Pope.

Of the three main Christian branches, in my opinion Roman Catholicism is by far the least convincing, and its apologists by far the most annoying. Still love you guys though! I earnestly hope you will find comfort knowing that Christ's sacrifice has already justified you, and you don't need to do anything to earn his grace.

Of the three main Christian branches, in my opinion Roman Catholicism is by far the least convincing, and its apologists by far the most annoying.

Interesting to note that miracles which can withstand scientific scrutiny are exclusively associated with Roman Catholicism.

What miracles can withstand scientific scrutiny?

The existence of the universe?

To my layman understanding of miracles there has to be an established understanding of a secular mechanism which is then defied by the alleged miracle. The existence of the universe does not match this because we have no established understanding of a secular mechanism according to which the universe couldn't (or could) exist.

Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?

I don't think that this is the definition of "miracle" used by the Bible, or any other religious text, written before the scientific method was established.

Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?

Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?

Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?

I do not think "you can't explain what is literally beyond known existence" is a criticism that destroys secular humanism.

I'm saying that "existence is amazingly extraordinary" (backed by hours of hypnotic monologues by Sagan, Dawkins, or Tyson) has been literally what secular humanists were saying in order to generate a sense of awe similar to that of religious epiphanies.

Your particular argument destroys any such attempt. Even if secular humanism remains ubdeboonked, it's left barren of any higher goal.

I see. Personally, it's plenty good enough for me. I notice a pattern where I get into an argument with someone who is against secularism/materialism, and every time it's some variant of "those guys back then made all those promises about it". I never needed to hear those promises or believe in them to prefer secularism to religion.

Conversely, if the promises of religion about eternal life in heaven are not true, then is the preaching and the faith not completely in vain?

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