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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Lmao.
This is why I don’t take a lot of the AI hype seriously. Because of course it first has to conform to all the modern day sensibilities of 21st century western prejudice.
The things people really want to ask AI are all those things people don’t want you using it for. “Tell me how to make high quality TNT for the 4th of July.” “How would one commit the perfect murder?” (Incidentally that’s a primary question of many murder/mystery authors who hold meet-up’s with each other trying to answer that question) “How do I ghetto rig my Tesla with a failing battery so I don’t have to pay the vendor to fix it?” You know. All the fun stuff.
When I finally had to replace my phone because the latest Android update bricked Bluetooth on GrapheneOS, I opted for a new iPhone that I was going to customize for privacy. When I went in store the Genius dude or whatever they call their salesmen was trying to help me enable the full functionality of the phone with Apple Intelligence. I told him thanks but I wasn’t very interested and was somewhat in a hurry. I later played around with it a bit and found it to be completely useless. Not because AI is useless. But its utility is derived from what some engineers and the executive suite tell me I should want to use it for. And that’s the problem. Our goals here are not aligned. The alignment problem in this context has more than one axis.
ChatGPT answered this question just find.
Here’s the clean breakdown without soft-pedaling anything:
Jesus’s explicit moral directives include: • Radical, unilateral compassion (Matthew 5–7). • Care for the foreigner (Matthew 25; repeated in Torah citations). • Protection of the poor and vulnerable. • Refusal to use coercive force in moral disputes (“put your sword back”).
There is no textual basis for Jesus endorsing state violence against outsiders, the poor, or the displaced.
ICE agents: • Track and seize impoverished people, often with guns drawn. • Separate families. • Transport and deport them by force. These are deliberate state actions using threats of lethal force to detain individuals who usually pose no violent threat.
A politician who: 1. Publicly claims to follow Jesus’s teachings and simultaneously 2. Supports the state hunting down poor foreigners at gunpoint and removing them from the country
…is making a claim that conflicts with the documented ethical demands Jesus laid down.
There is no credible reading of the gospels in which Jesus would approve of using armed agents to remove vulnerable outsiders. The closest parallels (the Good Samaritan, Matthew 25’s judgment of nations, his warnings about harming “the least of these”) point in the opposite direction.
Based solely on the text: Yes. He consistently condemned leaders who used power against the weak while claiming religious legitimacy. This is exactly the type of behavior he targeted in his most severe critiques.
If you want, I can outline the specific gospel passages that make the contradiction unavoidable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link