site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20028 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

With the recent arrest of Don Lemon, I think it's worth asking how society should respond to the sorts of activities he (allegedly) engaged in?

Disrupting a church service is not exactly terrorism, since there was no actual violence used. But it's not civil disobedience either -- nobody is seriously arguing that the laws against disrupting meetings are themselves unjust.

It's sort of Terrorism Lite. It's kind of like, as another poster analogized, to holding your fist a millimeter away from someone's face while chanting "I'm not touching you." The point is to (arguably) inflict as much harm as you can get away with, to grab attention, to intimidate, to provoke a response, etc. while plausibly claiming that you are non-violent.

Maybe it's my imagination, but I feel like I've seen more and more of this Terrorism Lite in recent years. Things like traffic-blocking; meeting disruption; etc.

While it's true that there are already laws on the books against these sorts of things, I think an argument can be made that there needs to be a more focused and vigorous response. By analogy, in theory blowing up a bomb in a train station is already against the law, whether or not it's in support of some political objective, but there is value in having special laws on the books against terrorism and especially against those who finance or otherwise support it.

In the same way, there could be laws which sanction people, organizations, and governments for providing material support to what I have called Terrorism Lite. (Perhaps someone can suggest a better term.)

Potentially related: Will Stancil has been kicked out of ICE Rapid Response for allowing journalists to ride along and cover his activities. It will not be good for the defense of the activists in the church case that Don Lemon livestreamed the whole thing. I'm not sure how Stancil got this far without realizing how much his compatriots yell, "we love crime," while doing crime, but his youthful innocence goes a long way towards explaining why it is so much fun to make fun of him.

Just in case you were serious, or someone else missed the tongue in your cheek, but Will Stancil is 40. He just looks like he's 14.

There are laws against this stuff, they were written to go after pro-life civil disobedience and in a few cases against desegregationists. I believe Don lemon is being charged under the KKK act, and the freedom of access to clinics act was considered for him as well.

I'd much prefer we returned to a time where people got their asses kicked for acting like an asshole and the cops wouldn't do anything if it was plain that a person had it coming.

Disparate impact problem.

By state law, it's 100% disorderly conduct, criminal trespass and I think riot in the third degree ("When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant therein is guilty of riot third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both."). Any threat of violence would be "gross misdemeanor" assault in Minnesota. The proper response is that the state government of Minnesota should arrest, try, and convict the mob members and send them to prison for a few months each. That would be a proportionate and just response. If the state government of Minnesota refuses to do that because they are on the side of the "protestors" ... well then you are in a state of exception ...One option then, is to hack federal law in order to go after the protestors, which is what the left usually does. It might make sense to make disorderly conduct in sufficient scale and coordination to be a federal felony. That would stop all these "terrorism lite" tactics. Another possibility would be to arrest the actual members of the state government in that case, for conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. And if you can't get a federal judge to approve it, well, again, you would be in the state of exception. All of these tracks require a plan for the ensuing escalation.

One option then, is to hack federal law in order to go after the protestors

In this case it's not really even a hack -- "disrupting a place of worship" is black-letter FACE act AFAICT.

(or maybe you could say that the hack took place when that law was implemented, in that including places of worship was not the initial goal of the legislators -- but that seems neither here nor there)

It might make sense to make disorderly conduct in sufficient scale and coordination to be a federal felony.

I'm certain that at least some of the Internet packets used to coordinate the event (or live stream it) crossed state lines. IIRC that's been a federal jurisdiction hook before.

Disrupting a church service is not exactly terrorism, since there was no actual violence used.

I think the FBI affidavit is important to review before going into the discussion.

First, the "protestors" were blocking people in, keeping them from leaving or from getting to their children who had been taking to another area for childcare.

Victim 4 noted after the protest began, approximately fifty members of the congregation were stuck towards the front of the church. Victim 4 informed agents the aisles are already narrow to begin with, and the agitators who occupied the center of the sanctuary made it nearly impossible for parishioners to get out and leave.

Victim 4 informed agents that members of their parish attempted to retrieve their children from the childcare area located downstairs, but the agitators were blocking the stairs, and the parents were unable to get to their children. Victim 4 recalled one agitator was threatening, aggressive, and intimidating towards parishioners. Additionally, this agitator was screaming and getting in people's faces, to include women and young children. This agitator continued to scream in the faces of young children while they were crying.

Just, you know, some light "preventing parents from caring for their small children." Really, could happen to any honest protestor.

One of the church goers fled out a side door, tripped, and broke her arm. Is that the fault of the protestors? Kinda, if they hadn't scared her she wouldn't have ran so quickly.

Victim 6 was scared the agitators were not going to let people leave and that they were going to harm victim 1's family for harboring victim 1. Victim 6 later stated protesters followed and surrounded them in their car and would not let them leave.

Again with the not letting people leave thing. What elements need to be present for this to be kidnapping? Or endangering children?

Or unlawful arrest. But those are all state charges.

I guess everyone in Minnesota who is in a category the State will refuse to protect should just leave Minnesota.

I don't know what other remedies our system has.

A good fraction of the '60s civil rights infrastructure was oriented at states refusing to protect certain classes of citizens.

A church is a fairly arbitrary point to draw the line at in the grand scheme of things. However it is where the line is drawn and the civil disobedient crossed it.

I also feel it's relevant that if the same thing happened at a mosque with a right wing group it would likely be a long running national media emergency

The law is intentionally set up to allow for Terrorism Lite to work, especially when it is being committed for certain ends. The law is not meant (by those who write it) to equally protect the abortion protestor and the pro-choice activist.

Maybe it's my imagination, but I feel like I've seen more and more of this Terrorism Lite in recent years. Things like traffic-blocking; meeting disruption; etc.

I mean... look up historical activist tactics, especially in the '60s and '70's.

Both terrorist-lite and terrorist-heavy tactics get employed, and there are whole books written on the proper training and implementation of each.

In the same way, there could be laws which sanction people, organizations, and governments for providing material support to what I have called Terrorism Lite. (Perhaps someone can suggest a better term.)

Generally agreed, but the other approach is to empower those on the receiving end to immediately respond relatively harshly and given them legal support for doing so.

Florida's notorious anti-riot law did in fact increase penalties for organizing riots/violent protests. But it also added legal protections for individuals who are targeted by rioters and respond with violent action (limited to self defense, mind).

I think its obvious that if interrupting a religious service with a mob of people could get someone beaten or even shot, and the defender would be legally immune from consequences... they'd be much, much less inclined to take on the risks inherent in that action.

This is a separate question from whether the churchgoers have the ability and will to actually get violent.

In practice, even in very liberal jurisdictions, church invasions over the Dobbs decision were routinely met with violence and police had little interest in whether that violence was legal- theres a few videos from LA around then.

Generally agreed, but the other approach is to empower those on the receiving end to immediately respond relatively harshly and given them legal support for doing so.

Having had the experience of attending a lecture that was disrupted by protestors, it definitely would have been satisfying to have the green light to kick some ass. But I'm not sure how workable that is in practice.

I definitely agree that a motorist whose car has been blocked/surrounded should have a good deal of latitude to use force.

Another idea is to give the victims of Lite Terrorists a private right of action to sue for statutory damages against everyone involved, including organizations that supported the wrongdoing.

But I'm not sure how workable that is in practice.

I just note that Florida has had VERY few issues with rioters and harassment of civilians in the past 5 years.

There are of course other reasons for that.

I think it almost facially true that if the law disfavors those who act against the harassers, then most will choose to just sit by and take no action, which likely emboldens the protestors further.

It also sidesteps the issue of local officials who might tacitly support the protestors and order Law Enforcement to stand down.

I would never blame someone for not wanting to escalate a situation on their own, though.

It's intimidation, harassment, or something similar. And it has (or should have) a high probability of triggering a Civil Rights investigation as the 1st Amendment begins with the religious freedom clause.

It's not civil disobedience because no church represents the local/state/federal government. This is also why it isn't terrorism per se.

To the specific Don Lemon case, this just shows how profoundly dumb that man is. America is a very secular nation. Especially in regards to Christians, "The Culture" is openly antagonistic unless you're one of those "christian" groups with LGBTQ flags and female pastors.

But actually running in to disrupt a service is still faux pas. People are still woo-woo enough that they aren't okay with this. It would've been fine if Lemon and his weirdo friends picketed outside the church. It would've been more than okay for him to make up just-so false equivalents to random Bible excerpts. Since at least the early 1990s, it's been totally okay to parody solemn Christian institutions to the point of profanity.

But don't go into the Church, dude.

It's not civil disobedience because no church represents the local/state/federal government. This is also why it isn't terrorism per se.

A terrorist act does not have to be committed against a government entity in order to be a terrorist attack. The World Trade Center was not a government building yet 9/11 is considered a terrorist act.

Sure, fine. Whatever.

here's the definition of the term in US Code

While it's true that there are already laws on the books against these sorts of things, I think an argument can be made that there needs to be a more focused and vigorous response.

The main answer to this is having vague enough laws and leaving it to the police to enforce it at their discretion, but it requires a lot of social capital and trust to do, which is precisely what you're running out of these days.

The main answer to this is having vague enough laws and leaving it to the police to enforce it at their discretion

The result of this is a police state.

One of the failure state of it is, but it doesn't have to be. Not every city/state/province/country that has loitering laws, for instance, is a police state. Loitering as a concept is vague enough that the police has to exercise judgement in removing people who are being a nuisance and those who aren't.

But when you run out of social capital, you end up on both sides with abuse (on the police side with abuse of authority and on the other side doing the maximum they can get away with despite going against the spirit of the law).

The law he's accused of violating is an abortion access law. Pro life advocates are convicted of violations when they engage in silent prayer in abortion clinics.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5460e86be4b058ea427aec94/t/688a8c566fec2b1a6049beed/1753910358668/25-+Petition.pdf

Matthew kept a distance from Northland’s suite, quietly staying in a common area of the building that was “down the hall” from Northland near the building’s shared elevators. Pet. App. 5a. Security footage shows Matthew kneeling in the common area of the building, peacefully praying. Pet. App. 108a. Officers described Matthew’s actions on April 23rd as “peaceful.” Pet. App. 59a-62a. Matthew never acted with violence, and the only “weapon” he carried was a “Rosary.” Id.

I personally believe in the Chicago way when it comes to political prosecutions. If you convict one of ours for a silent prayer, I'm going to try to convict 2 of yours for anything more than a silent prayer. I'm still upset that no one has been given the J6 treatment for the Floyd protests.

I also wish that at least interstate highways were ruled open range cars. Meaning if someone blocks a car on an interstate they are 100% liable for all damage caused in the collision.

Connolly's case has nothing to do with the FACE Act? He was convicted under a state level ordinance...

The law he's accused of violating is an abortion access law

Sure, what I am suggesting is that instead of using a patchwork approach of using one law for disrupting a church service; another law for blocking a street; another law for pulling a false fire alarm to disrupt a conference; and so on, there (perhaps) should be a more unified approach to dealing with this phenomenon. And more importantly, there should (arguably) be laws imposing sanctions on the persons and NGOs who support these sorts of activities.

It works when you have allied media organizations and friendly local authorities. It's literally in the Antifa playbook. The goal is to exploit the right to protest to pursue low level paramilitary activity. They're very good at it, and they've established the norm so much that regular left-wingers often now seem confused when their protesters get arrested for intimidation, vandalism, or even violence. They've gotten away with so much that it has moved from an expectation to an entitlement.

Occasionally right-wing protesters try the same tactics only to discover that it doesn't work for them.

X to doubt.

The pro-life movement’s protest tactics got lots of people arrested, but generally not imprisoned, for behavior that successfully reduced the number of abortion clinics. Antifa members get arrested but not imprisoned all the time too.

Exactly. Like a recent Twitter narrative going around partly inspired by Generalissimo-in-exile Will Stancil where people were lauding his personal courage in taking to the field.

I agree that what he's doing takes a degree of courage, but it's also insane to equivocate it to similar actions of right wing protestors. Stancil hasn't even jeopardized his academic job, whilst the risk of complete financial and social censure for being equally visible as a right wing agitator is considerably higher.

I'm perfectly happy with Civil Right's legislation being thrown at these "protesters". It's as legitimate a use of it as others I've seen. And it almost makes me believe I still have rights.

But it isn't (and you don't). The judicial system understands that these laws are only supposed to be used against the right, so they refused to even approve charges against Lemon.

My understanding is what was rejected was an Emergency Warrant. I have no idea how often Emergency Warrants are used. Maybe an Emergency Warrant would have been approved if but for Lemon's politics/status? How would we know?

But it isn't (and you don't). The judicial system understands that these laws are only supposed to be used against the right, so they refused to even approve charges against Lemon.

Well from what I understand, the feds requested arrest warrants as to 3 or 4 individuals (including Lemon) and the arrests were approved as to everyone except Lemon. This suggests that there really is some kind of weakness in the case against Lemon.

Do you happen to know what exactly the evidence against him? I've searched for it online but haven't found anything.

I expect him to claim that he was there doing journalism, and as such not a part of the group disrupting things; a 1A vs 1A battle!

The truth of that claim will probably be more important than balancing the right to worship with the right to journalist, but I expect that is the issue.

I've searched for it online but haven't found anything.

If you wait for a few days, the indictment listing the actual charges and evidence should be posted somewhere on RECAP.

Do you happen to know what exactly the evidence against him?

His livestream?!

What are we even doing man...

His livestream?!

What exactly did he do?

Edit: By the way, I think it's pretty likely that he helped plan and organize the disruption and/or actively participated. I'm just wondering what the evidence is.

The entire livestream is still up on his personal YouTube channel (the action is all in the first hour or so). He travels with the group from the staging area to the church. It is clear from how he covers the lead-up that he is in on the plot.

I'm not sure how they'll get him specifically on the FACE Act charges, but he does seem to be part of the conspiracy, and that's what they need for the KKK Act charges.

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