site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29405 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

I always sort of wonder what functions as the katechon in the world after 1945. This is Schmitt’s 1947 diary. ‘I believe in the katechons, for me the only possible way to understand Christian history and find it meaningful. The katechon needs to be named for every epoch for the past 1948 years.’ The way I interpret this is that sotto voce, Schmitt is saying he has no idea what the katechon is. And maybe, the New Dealers are running the whole planet. Then of course, 1949 the Soviets get the bomb, and my sort of provisional answer is that the katechon for 40 years, from ’49 to ’89, is anti-communism. Which is in some ways is somewhat violent, not purely Christian but very, very powerful. I’ve argued that the katechon, or something like this, is necessary but not sufficient. And I want to finish by stressing where one goes wrong with it. If we forget its essential role, which is to restrain the antichrist, the antichrist might even present himself or itself or herself as the katechon, or hijack the katechon. This is almost a memetic version. A similarity between the antichrist and the katechon, they’re both sort of political figures. The katechon is tied in with empire and politics. If the antichrist is going to take over the world, you need something very powerful to stop it.

The katechon, the restrainer of the antichrist, must be both really powerful to prevent the antichrist, but that means there is also the danger that it IS the antichrist. I have a soft spot for theology and think it is fun to think about such mindbenders and finding real world examples. I guess Thiel was nerd sniped here.

The general point seems to be that Thiel would like to avoid anything which is too powerful, which is a globalist one-world-government. Which makes sense in a not-all-eggs-in-one-basket way.

I laughed about the juxtaposition of Francis Bacon and juvenile japanese Manga:

In his second lecture, Thiel also explores the idea of the antichrist through four works of literature – Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, Alan Moore’s Watchmen graphic novel and Eiichiro Oda’s manga series One Piece.

I laughed out loud about this:

Thiel says he is “very pro-JD Vance”. But he has some concerns about his allegiance to the pope. “The place that I would worry about is that he’s too close to the pope. And so we have all these reports of fights between him and the pope. I hope there are a lot more. It’s the Caesar-Papist fusion that I always worry about. By the way, I’ve given him this feedback over time.

I don’t know how wooey Vance is, he comes off as relatively grounded, but Thiel giving the unsolicited advice to not get too close to the pope must have been an absurd scene (and suspiciously what I would have expected the antichrist to say).

I going to say, 99.9% joking, that Thiel may be WELS-Lutheran. My wife was raised in the WELS, and the latter believe that — not the individual — but the seat of the Pope is the Antichrist.

(The WELS are also exceedingly unecumenical, and are instructed not to pray with anyone outside their synod.)

Yeah, ELCA is the most liberal, LCMS is more conservative than that, and WELS is the most conservative, right?

If he's German-American I could see some variety of Lutheran background and of course even a liberal Lutheran probably isn't all that fond of the papacy. Still makes me laugh that he's warning Vance off; seems like the new Pope should be warned off Vance ("Careful, your Holiness, your predecessor died the day after meeting him!") 🤣

Wikipedia isn't very helpful, German Evangelicalism is probably different from the American version:

"Thiel is a self-described Christian and a promoter of René Girard's Christian anthropology. He grew up in an evangelical household but, as of 2011, described his religious beliefs as "somewhat heterodox".

This could be his parents' background:

The Evangelical Church in Germany is a federation of twenty Lutheran, Reformed, and United Protestant regional Churches in Germany, collectively encompassing the vast majority of the country's Protestants. It calls itself the Protestant Church in Germany in English. In 2024, the EKD had a membership of 17,979,849 members, or 21.5% of the German population. It constitutes one of the largest Protestant bodies in the world. Church offices managing the federation are located in Herrenhausen, Hanover, Lower Saxony. Many of its members consider themselves Lutherans."

Or they could be Evangelical in the American sense:

Despite their many similarities, evangelicals are not a homogenous group. In the German-speaking world, they can be roughly divided into three main denominations:

  • Confessing Evangelicals, who value the authority of traditional church confessions , are found in conservative circles within regional churches, for example, in the No Other Gospel confessional movement and the Conference of Confessing Communities .
  • The charismatic evangelicals, mainly in charismatic circles of the regional churches and in the congregations of the Pentecostal movement .
  • The Evangelicals in the Pietistic tradition, mainly in the Pietism of the regional churches, in traditional free churches and in the Mennonite Brethren congregations , which were often founded by Russian-German emigrants .

He was born in Hesse, so his family could be these:

Open Evangelicals or Neo-Evangelicals: This movement takes a distanced stance towards biblical criticism but is willing to accept certain of its findings. It is found particularly among evangelicals in the regional churches. This largely includes regional church Pietism with its regional focuses in Baden-Württemberg , Hesse and Saxony and the Protestant Community Movement and its educational institutions such as the Albrecht Bengel House , the Evangelical Tabor University in Marburg, the Liebenzell International University in Bad Liebenzell , the Johanneum or the Paulinum . In the free churches they are particularly represented among the Old Lutherans such as the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church , among the Mennonites and Methodists , although there are also "non-evangelical" Christians among these, and in the more liberal wings of other free churches.

Since we don't know, it's difficult to speculate about his childhood religious influences. Possibly Pietist-influenced Lutherans?

It's been described to me by a lutheran friend like this: ELCA are just autistic Episcopalians(with the variance, and age, that you'd expect), LCMS are conventionally conservative, WELS are so fundamentalist they rival tradcaths and quiverfulls.

That seems, broadly speaking, accurate.

I was raised ELCA. My best friend from high school is now an LCMS pastor, and my wife was raised WELS.

I don’t think the ELCA is quite what’s described above. The Lutherans, even the ELCA, at least started from a comparably-confident theology. The ELCA still includes the Book of Concord as one of its guiding texts and creeds. And the ELCA still holds the most stereotypical Lutheran theological belief: real presence (say it with me: “IS MEANS IS!”).

My wife and I are church shopping and are having a heck of a time. We both feel too conservative for liberal churches and too liberal for conservative churches.

One really sad thing is that there are cultural trends not inherently and inseparably wed to any theological difference that shape liberal and conservative Protestant denominations.

Namely, the median conservative Protestant (and not just Lutheran) church uses contemporary worship music that, for us, turns a Sunday into an aesthetic ordeal.

And particularly so having been raised Lutheran. Bach, Handel and Mendelssohn were all devout. Some of Bach’s works are deliberately Protestant in composition, designed to allow his congregation to sing simple lines that combine to create complex harmonies. Per capita, Lutherans are the undisputed champions of worship music.

Which is why the number of acoustic guitars and tambourines found in LCMS churches hurts.

The WELS are one of the rare exceptions, anywhere in American Protestantism, of very conservative churches who still insist upon traditional worship music. It remains as a part of their insularity. Also as they’re not on trend as a conservative Protestant church, their numbers are declining.

Conversely, and even aside from theological disagreements, the depth of theology found in the sermons of ELCA (and other liberal mainline churches) sermons, in the aggregate, is wanting. I agree it is wonderful God sent Christ to die for our sins, and that I should be kind to others. Hearing not too much more than that in almost every sermon doesn’t really help me, as a layman, grow in my faith.

My wife is a hard no on returning to the WELS, as the church she grew up in dealt… less than honestly… with one of her elderly relatives in convincing the latter to make a sizable bequest. She also attended a private WELS school which didn’t prohibit non-WELS children from attending, as this is a big source of revenue for the WELS. A high school classmate and friend of hers who wasn’t WELS died, suddenly, of a heart problem. And her school pulled all its students together to remind them they were not to pray at the subsequent funeral.

The LCMS (and even the smaller LCMC which sits ideologically in between the LCMS and ELCA) churches in our area all make use of drum sets, guitars and keyboards. Plus we both disagree with the LCMS on young-earth creationism.

And our local ELCA churches have followed the national organization’s postmodern, progressive tendencies, and offer shallow, redundant services.

We’ve branched out and are currently, desperately searching for a church among other Protestant denominations, even if it is an outlier in relation to the views of its national organization, that has traditional music and theological depth in its sermons.

We were very impressed by the pastor at a PCA church we visited, but infinitely less-so by the cajón behind him. And, there were no bibles in the pews at this church — some things even if we leave for another denomination, having been both raised Lutheran, we just can’t accept.

The search goes on…

Going off on a tangent, I saw that Katie Porter, running for governor of California and currently blowing up in the news for blowing up her campaign, is (according to Wikipedia) an Episcopalian.

And I had to laugh, because that's just so perfect. Of course she would be. Though I don't know if the Episcopalians want to be linked to someone trending right now for being an absolute bitch to her staff, amongst other things. Allegedly she fired a staff member for giving her Covid, because said staff member didn't mask while in her house, even though the staff member explained that was because she was upset about learning a friend had been murdered (and also supposedly Porter had been vaccinated previously). So yeah, charming lady, totally who you would want governing you.

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