site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   12043 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, speaking of attorneys general

Minnesota state attorney general Keith Ellison has gone on record saying he believes the recent storming of a church by protestors in Minneapolis to be a lawful act of protest.

Minnesota Statute 609.28 is titled "Interfering with religious observance" and makes it a misdemeanor to "by threats or violence, intentionally prevent another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes".

Now, I'm not a lawyer. It seems to me that this protest very definitely did intentionally prevent people from performing a religious service. The only iffy part is whether the "by threats or violence" criteria is met by the protestors' behavior. The people in the church certainly reasonably felt threatened, which is the standard for most other crimes involving the word "threat". But not a single Democratic Party official in the state of Minnesota, or as far as I know anywhere in the country, has denounced this act, and the guy in charge of prosecuting crimes in the state of Minnesota is willing to go on a podcast and tell all of the Christian worshippers in the state of Minnesota that mobs are allowed to descend upon their services at any time for any reason despite a clear statutory prohibition on doing so.

The situation in Minnesota is thus the same as the situation you outline in Virginia - The attorney general has now demonstrated that he will use his authority to shield unlawful behavior by his political allies against his political opponents.

I am giving a lot of consideration to moving out of Minnesota.

Minnesota Statute 609.28 is titled "Interfering with religious observance" and makes it a misdemeanor to "by threats or violence, intentionally prevent another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes".

There's also the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 that was originally intended to nerf abortion protestors, but contains a parallel for places of religious worship:

(2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship

However, it is unclear here if the master's tools can be used to dismantle the master's house.

But not a single Democratic Party official in the state of Minnesota, or as far as I know anywhere in the country, has denounced this act

Well, it would make sense not to denounce something you support.

The situation in Minnesota is thus the same as the situation you outline in Virginia - The attorney general has now demonstrated that he will use his authority to shield unlawful behavior by his political allies against his political opponents.

james_franco_first_time.jpg

There's also the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 that was originally intended to nerf abortion protestors, but contains a parallel for places of religious worship:

That's federal law, Minnesota can only bring prosecution for state laws. The feds are investigating prosecutions under the FACE act and, amusingly, the KKK act. But I am fairly confident that we would not be seeing federal prosecutions for this under a Harris presidency (though under a Harris presidency, these people wouldn't be rioting), which rather raises the urgency of preventing the Democrats from regaining the presidency.

Indeed, there was a leftist fad of attacking Catholic churches in the aftermath of Dobbs. Few prosecutions.

Here's a map: https://catholicvote.org/tracker-church-attacks/

Yeah, it's federal, which is good for diversification purposes; I mostly wanted to point out that there are also other paths for recourse that don't rely on that Minnesotan statute. But to the extent Nothing Ever Happens, there's still no guarantee Something Will Happen even if the DOJ is supposedly investigating.

It’s also good because the Minnesota AG recently gave an interview in which he lied about the provisions of the FACE Act in order to claim that the protestors couldn’t have violated it:

And the FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking their reproductive rights, to be protected so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into women's reproductive health centers, so how they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior or the perceived behavior of a religious leader is beyond me…. So I think that the FACE Act and the KKK Act are on their face inapplicable.

Interestingly, though Ellison doesn’t see a problem with protesting, harassing, and filming congregants at a church, back in 2020 his office was proud to assist in the prosecution of a woman “who has videotaped congregants at Dar al-Farooq mosque in Bloomington without their consent, causing those congregants and their children to feel intimidated and afraid.”

(Edited to include a link to the video and expand the quote.)

It’s also good because the Minnesota AG recently gave an interview in which he lied about the provisions of the FACE Act in order to claim that the protestors couldn’t have violated it

I was unaware of that video until now, but I played it and damn does it proceed like a Key & Peele sketch. Even the transcription you provided is quite charitable in smoothing over the stutters, pauses, "uh"s, and general stumbling through sentences.

I mostly wanted to point out that there are also other paths for recourse that don't rely on that Minnesotan statute.

In this instance, sure

But you can't rely on the feds to step in every single time the state engages in politically motivated prosecution practices.

At the moment, the government of Minnesota is signalling to its constituents that the policy of the state of Minnesota is that Democratic Party loyalists will be privileged under the law, which has enormous implications for anyone who is not a Democratic Party loyalist.

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