site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   2935 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 19, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Setting aside the crazed "magic bullet/second shooter/faked with AI" conspiracy views on the Charlie Kirk assassination, are there any takes on it wilder than this one:

MAGA pastor Shane Vaughn claims that God allowed Satan to kill Charlie Kirk before Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson could turn Kirk against Israel: "God said, 'No, not today. You're too pure and you have too much influence.'"

(And also, what do you even call this type of position/argument?)

Not exactly a take or an argument, but there's a billboard in my town with Charlie's face on it and the phrase "Well Done Good and Faithful Servant, Well Done." And it's sponsored by a prominent local Republican family. And every time I pass it I'm deeply uncomfortable, like passing Dr. T.J. Eckleberg on my way to the Hamptons.

The phrasing is weird. Who is speaking? Was Charlie the servant of this local Republican family? Or are they speaking/writing as God? Because that's just so disturbing and arrogant, you don't write as God. And how is it appropriate to say Well Done to Charlie at this time? I mean, sure, say the guy was a good guy, you can even say he achieves more as a martyr (Joe Hill or Horst Wessel as your opinion runs], but it's just so off-putting to say "Well Done" for dying. This wasn't Charlie doing well, this wasn't what Charlie wanted, he wanted to be alive raising his kids.

And why is a private individual sponsoring it? It would be one thing for the local Republican party, or even a local evangelical church, to do it. But just a guy? It's weird and self centered.

I'm bothered by it every time I drive by it.

It’s a quote from the parable of the talents, and is definitely meant to be from God saying that Charlie lived a righteous life and is now with God. That meaning will be patently obvious to any practicing Christian, and pretty clear to those of us exposed to a lot of the Christian memetic superstructure in American culture.

It’s a bit surprising to me that it’s non-obvious to you. That’s not meant as a criticism, more as an acknowledgment of my own blind spots. I suppose that the superstructure has significantly eroded over the last 50 years to the point that even the most basic points of the Christian memeplex are no longer part of the general culture.

I didn't mention the bible verse because I don't think it makes the usage any less bizarre in context.

A wacko. You call this type of position/argument "a wacko".

In British English, the "whacko" would be the person who advances the argument. You might also call the argument a "whacko argument".

And also, what do you even call this type of position/argument?

Chronic Scofield’s disease.

Alternatively, the fruits of heresy.

If this guy were trying to popularise the anti-Israel position and not get in trouble for it he would have a hard time writing a better line. I assume he's actually being genuine here, but unless he's claiming Charlie Kirk was stupid or weak then drawing attention to the idea this pure hearted man was about to turn against Israel raises questions about why a good man would come so close to turning against Israel.

(And also, what do you even call this type of position/argument?)

Grifting. Rent's due, and he's low on funds.

Wouldn't it pretty clearly be angling at a Divine Taboo: even questioning Israel or talking with someone who might cause you to question Israel is so offensive to the Almighty that he might smite you early just to be safe.

Cornutus ex machina ?

Kirk was affiliated with a heavily Zionist Church. They have sermons where they teach that every Christian has to support Israel politically to be on favorable terms with God, that Israel has a divine right to the entirety of “Greater Israel” (large swaths of neighboring countries), and that America will go to war with Iran sometime soon to spark the End Times.

This is a prime example of the mental gymnastics one has to preform as a rational person with fundamentalist beliefs. For whatever reason(s), Vaughn has decided that core axioms of Christianity are true (powerful invisible beings who intervene in human affairs, valid prophecies waiting to be fulfilled, etc.), and his theory about the metaphysical implications are basically rational if you consider that he’s not going to question these priors.

All that assumes he has sincere belief. There is some MRI evidence that most people are quite uncertain about metaphysical claims.

Once you fully accept divine providence, you're sort of forced into rationalizing events in this way. There are still a bunch of biblical prophesies that God has to fulfil eventially. It is very convenient for the fulfilment of these prophesies to have the Jewish people concentrated in the holy land. It is reasonable to assume given these premises that God will prevent the United States from turning against Israel.

No you are not. You can just say "God does things that I do not understand, and I accept it because I do not pretend to fully understand God". If anything, I can't understand how you can fully accept divine providence without being ready to admit that - I mean, this would literally require a God-sized ego otherwise. At least for a Christian I think, it is on the list as hyperēphania, or in simpler words, pride.

I've outlined this at length before, but I have a lot of trouble seeing how an open minded reading of the OT makes it reasonable to expect God to do anything in particular with the Israelites on any particular day. God throws them back and forth constantly in ways that make sense to him and maybe to the Israelites themselves, but are rarely easily diagnosed by outsiders.

First thing coming to mind is a chutzpiracy theory?

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