site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13520 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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.

It turns out Greenland/Denmark and Canada aren't the only friendly countries that the US has been threatening, the Vatican's ambassador to the US (according to The Free Press and Letters from Leo a Catholic focused blog) was given both explicit and coded threats of military force against the Holy See.

In January, behind closed doors at the Pentagon, Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre — Pope Leo XIV’s then-ambassador to the United States — and delivered a lecture.

“America,” Colby and his colleagues told the cardinal, “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.”

As tempers rose, one U.S. official reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.

JD Vance, a Catholic himself, has done a pretty rare thing for the Trump admin and said they're gonna get to the bottom of it first, instead of immediately dismissing it as fake news.. This doesn't confirm it as real, but that it wasn't immediately denied and dismissed like the typical M.O. is quite interesting.

This could help explain why Pope Leo has felt so emboldened to speak up against Trump's war efforts in Iran, cause the administration officials have been warmongering against them behind the scenes. The chance that the admin actually pulls the trigger and attacks the Vatican is obviously low, but that they keep threatening many of our allies both publically and privately seems quite concerning to me. It also opens up a new thing to consider, how many other allies are they threatening behind closed doors too?

Vatican is like Israel. They have no friends, only interests.

The Pope planning to spend the 250th anniversary of the USA in the completely irrelevant island named Lampedusa (yeah we get the pun Leo), known solely for importing Africans into Europe, reminds me why I ultimately have to hate Catholicism. This is a serious insult to an entire country over a political dispute involving a transient administration. And never would an Italian pope consider missing an important political anniversary in Italy. If Catholicism continues supporting endless migration into America and Europe then I will support any effort to shatter them into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the winds. There’s a generous middle-ground between “not supporting the destruction of an alien civilization” and “bringing literally infinite aliens into your country”, I don’t know how they could get this so wrong.

(Just reasoning from love thy neighbor: the Hispanic laborer who works in America has the privilege of sending home remittances with significantly greater purchasing power. Due to average salary difference adjusted for USD, cost of living difference and purchasing power difference, the Hispanic laborer could effectively make 10x more than his American counterpart. This allows him to easily support a family back home, which according to God’s design is a key factor for happiness, but the poor American laborer does not have this same privilege. Even the poor Indian who migrates here to work at a gas station has greater odds of supporting a family due to the status / wellbeing differential between here and India. We oppress our poorest neighbor by forcing him to compete with foreign workers when he makes significantly less in two key ways: (1) he often makes far less in terms of purchasing potentials re Latin America, (2) he makes far less in terms of marital potential re all foreign migrants. Same amount of stressful work, but significantly different payoff for wellbeing. Seems evil to me.)

If Catholicism continues supporting endless migration into America and Europe

It doesn't, and there's no reasonable basis to say that it does.

then I will support any effort to shatter them into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the winds.

It's all good, playboy.

We can thug it out however you want.

My understanding is that marital prospects for the median Indian guy are pretty dire, actually.

Incidentally, do you think Americans moving to lower cost of living places (which has a negative impact on the economy and housing for locals) is evil? How about American "passport bros" going to poor countries where their American dollars (and US passport) allows them to outcompete local men?

which has a negative impact on the economy and housing for locals

Housing, maybe in the short term (it's at least intuitive), but the economy? Is there any strong evidence for that?

We oppress our poorest neighbor by forcing him to compete with foreign workers

I like seeing the most incredibly leftist stereotypes imaginable coming from the nominal right simply by adding "foreign" or "immigrant" with it. The traditional (actual) conservative view of people like Reagan and Thatcher understood that growth is the rising tide that floats the boats for everyone, instead of constant regulation put to "protect" the poor. We oppress our poorest neighbors not by "forcing him to compete" but by sabotaging the market efficiency of our companies and slowing improvements.

It's the exact sort of thinking as an example that had blue states "protecting" taxi cab drivers from rideshare apps, slowing down the spread and hurting all the people who benefited from their use. The tradeoffs of neutered growth is that all the people who would benefit from it don't, and those people are disproportionately the poor who wouldn't have had any access before. A very poor person might have rarely ever taken a taxi long ago, the price being artificially restricted from competition (like taxi medallions) and instead end up stuck on public transit. Now it is so accessible to the poor that they're even ordering private taxis for groceries and restaurant food. It is not restriction, but growth that has allowed even the poorest Americans access.

Take this to almost anything and you see the same story. Whether it be from immigrant work, outsourcing, or automation, it helps the poor when the economy is grown. Factories allow poorer people to own cars. Developments like automated switchboards make phone bills cheaper. Laborers building homes help drive down rent (even if cities insist on restricting new homes and flooding the dam). You don't spend almost 15% of your income on clothing anymore because of growth. You've flown in a plane because of growth. You have a smartphone because of growth. You have cheap lighting in your homes because of growth. I can call a friend of mine all the way over in the UK for pennies because of growth. Do you wish to deny the poor all of this and all future things to come? If not, be pro growth and fight for efficiency in growing the economy, not temporary rent seeking "pro worker" progressiveism.

Unfortunately, while absolutely true, this is a tough message for politicians to sell. (There's a reason we haven't had another Reagan or Thatcher.) People take it for granted that they have all this stuff that barely even existed 50 years ago, as if this is just the way the arrow of time works. It's a lot easier to promise gibs to people who see that their neighbour has something they don't.

Americans generally do have the option of sending their families to live in Mexico and sending them remittances.

This would at least require a visa for longer stays, and it looks like permanent residency isn't impossible, but probably isn't affordable to "Americans generally".

Do you seriously think the quality of life for a lower class American is the same in Mexico as it would be for a lower class Mexican who grew up there, speaks the language, has a large extended family there, and associates it with all the nostalgic qualities which make one’s homeland appealing?

Those are social advantages, but yes, an American in Mexico would have more or less the same buying power and quality of life as a local. That's why many less affluent Americans' retirement plan is to move to a poor country.

There are many Americans (including those of non-Mexican descent) who retire in Mexican resort towns, sure. That’s a very different visa class and lifestyle to working a regular job in Mexico.

The same is true even with less economic inequality in Europe. Spain is full of English and German retirees, but barring a few senior corporate executives at Inditex or Santander the only non-Spanish speaking English and Germans who work there are a small number of low pay service workers whose jobs are catering to their own nationality’s tourists and retirees.

No, but people move around all the time to improve their economic status, including to places where they don't speak the language, have extended families,nor have nostalgia for from growing up there. If these kinds of migrants were getting as good a deal as the OP thinks they are, more people would go in the opposite direction.

“America,” Colby and his colleagues told the cardinal, “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.”

If this story is true, did Colby think that the cardinal is not aware of the military abilities of Russia and China?

If this story is true, did Colby think that the cardinal is not aware of the military abilities of Russia and China?

Given that those “abilities” are fairly anaemic, any knowledge that the cardinal has would increase Colby’s credibility.

Whatever their conventional military abilities are, the US cannot do whatever it wants in the territories of Russia and China without a high chance of getting nuked. Thus the US does not have the military power to do whatever it wants in the world.

No one, not even Xi Jinping himself, knows what the military capabilities of China are. They're completely untested, but it'd be a serious miscalculation to assume that that means they're a buffed up Iran.

This is incredibly based. A USG-sanctioned breakaway hierarchy might be our only shot at getting real Catholicism back. Once we've conceded that "Eternal Rome" means something different from, "the guy currently running The Vatican," then there is absolutely no reason that "Eternal Rome" can't be located in Dillwyn Virginia.

In historical reality, the threat of government-backed antipopes was the last line of defense against Rome's temporal power. The Avignon Papacy was a direct reaction to the papal bull Unam Sanctam, which is still on the books, and which declares the papacy as strictly superior to temporal rulers. Technically, the pope could order JD Vance to end the war, under penalty of excommunication and eternal damnation.

A USG-sanctioned breakaway hierarchy might be our only shot at getting real Catholicism back.

Saint Liebowitz, pray for us.

Technically, the pope could order JD Vance to end the war, under penalty of excommunication and eternal damnation.

You do not seem to understand either how Catholicism works or how the United States government does. The Pope does not have the ability to just order random Catholics to do whatever he wants for the very obvious reason that 1. religions schism all the time so people would just schism over that and 2. Vance if he really wanted to bomb Iran would just metaphorically say fuck off like he does about plenty of other topics already, and papal infallibility is extremely limited. But even if he did, it would be meaningless as the VP position does not hold power in that way.

You talk of wanting "real Catholicism" back and yet don't even understand what you are criticizing to begin with. As the other comment pointed out, you also don't even know where SSPX headquarters even are, the thing you're apparently supporting. Your understanding of Catholicism seems to be that of a tourist attracted to the vibes rather than genuine knowledge.

Once we've conceded that "Eternal Rome" means something different from, "the guy currently running The Vatican," then there is absolutely no reason that "Eternal Rome" can't be located in Dillwyn Virginia.

As if the SSPX has a history of playing ball with secular governments wanting political cover for whatever mindless anti-Catholic thing(the SSPX still believes in just war theory because it is Catholic doctrine) the secular government wants to do. Or as if the current(or any forseeable future) US government actually wants to give the kinds of concessions the SSPX would demand in return for being state-sanctioned(and end to the Iran war being one of them). Indeed, their willingness to suffer legal consequences for doing politically incorrect shit is probably part of why the Vatican is relatively conciliatory towards their loose-canon antics; it's simply useful to have a ready supply of priests willing to receive converts in Islamic theocracies and hold funerals for Nazi war criminals so the official hierarchy can keep its hands clean.

Their headquarters is also not located in Virginia(it is, literally, located in Rome- and their motherhouse is in Switzerland). They are a Francophone(and France is still a plurality of membership) fundamentalist organization which expects to outlast everyone who disagrees with them and so sees no need to compromise for temporal advantage.

Technically, the pope could order JD Vance to end the war, under penalty of excommunication and eternal damnation.

No he can't. JD Vance does not have the ability to end the war. The pope can yell all he wants, sure, but there's no possibility of a vice president personally ending the war. That's not how the government works.

Glad to see someone else here who stays abreast of the SSPX. The Pope has no secular terrestrial power to end the war but to condemn it and make it incumbent on every Catholic to obey his leadership and interpretation of doctrine. They’re continuing to do all the hard yards for the Church since Vatican II crippled their ability to remain firmly committed to dogma. It was a great pity after Francis’ death the next Pope didn’t come from that side of the aisle.

… which incidentally is exactly why people were worried about JFK becoming the first Catholic president back in the day: would he refuse orders from Rome if his immortal soul were on the line?

I always found this ridiculous. If you trip over a European history book and land face first on a random page your eyes will fall on a paragraph about a Catholic monarch with the title "Defender of the Faith" whose imperial regalia is festooned with crosses who rules a Catholic confessional state flagrantly ignoring direct papal orders and doing whatever he finds politically, socially, or sexually expedient. The pope is not nearly the boogeyman-puppetmaster he's made out to be. But I expect most educated people know that and are making these accusations in bad faith.

Every Catholic monarch of a Catholic state is Catholic by definition. If you’re the next Crown Prince of Liechtenstein, a devoutly (and officially) Catholic country ruled by a Catholic monarch, you can’t really abandon Catholicism, which both your people believe in and which forms the spiritual justification for your rule. If you’re an atheist you can break the rules but you have to keep your beliefs to yourself.

A religious Catholic by choice in a non-Catholic land is already signalling much more devotion to Rome and to the Pope than someone who doesn’t really have a choice. They are more likely to actually believe. The threat of eternal damnation carries more weight.

That's interesting. I'm not an expert in the topic, but my reading it seems to me that there is a rich history of political leaders ignoring the Catholic hierarchy's orders. Maybe political leaders, historically, even ignored its orders more often than they followed them, though I really don't know.

Catholics are not allowed to ignore the pope. A Catholic potus has an obligation to obey the pope or they are not Catholic. I’ve always said Jews have the same issue with Israel and their tribe.
The pre-eminent Catholic school in Americas motto is literal God-Country-Notre Dame.

That being said Catholic and Jews have already conquered this country and the Wasp are dead so the old evangelicals have already made their choice to back the Catholics.

Catholics are not allowed to ignore the pope. A Catholic potus has an obligation to obey the pope or they are not Catholic.

Billions of Catholics ignore the pope's directives every day. You may feel this is some sort of contradiction of the religion, but you are grossly, vastly outvoted.

Insert Ex Cathedra explanation here

Protestantism always struck me as a dead end theologically. Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to complete doctrinal anarchy. Scripture according to ‘whose’ interpretation? Mine? Yours? Church tradition? It’s a complete misnomer to reject Sacred Tradition because it provides the historical framework of interpretation for reading the Bible.

Mine? Yours?

From what I've seen, the answer is 'yes'. And if the differences are too great, you just split the church. That's how you end up with small villages with three churches. And some of the really devout people don't go to church at all. They know it all themselves anyway.

This could help explain why Pope Leo has felt so emboldened to speak up against Trump's war efforts in Iran

Trump went so far as to say that he was planning to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran. Of course the pope spoke out against him. It requires no behind closed doors activities to explain his willingness to be vocal about this war.

Trump went so far as to say that he was planning to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran. Of course the pope spoke out against him.

A majority of popes would have considered this an unequivocal good. Indeed, several of them have tried to do it themselves.

This would be news to most historians. Could you name me one?

Urban II, Eugene II, Gregory VIII, Innocent III, Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV…

Which of these called a crusade against the Khwarazmian Empire?

Presumably all the ones in and around the Crusades? I think the above comment was silly but I imagine there were many popes who wanted to (medieval equivalent) glass the middle east.

Are the Knight’s Templar currently bombing Iran? What’s going on today isn’t a religious war.

This could help explain why Pope Leo has felt so emboldened to speak up against Trump's war efforts in Iran, cause the administration officials have been warmongering against them behind the scenes.

It's the pope. How many times in recent years has the pope not spoken up against war efforts?

The chance that the admin actually pulls the trigger and attacks the Vatican is obviously low, but that they keep threatening many of our allies both publically and privately seems quite concerning to me. It also opens up a new thing to consider, how many other allies are they threatening behind closed doors too?

I mean, usually when the administration responds that they're going to look into a situation, that means that the message that's been reported is not what the administration approves of. At least publicly. So this would have to be something where they told Colby to threaten the Vatican, but unlike Canada and Greenland, wanted it kept on the down low? Seems implausible, but I've been wrong before.

It's conceivably possible that Colby overreached, or used heated rhetoric that others in the administration would not have signed off on.

I'm skeptical that the administration would have explicitly decided to try to threaten or bully the Vatican, but it would be pretty believable than Colby was told to be as persuasive and forceful as possible, and that in line with the generally bullying, thuggish culture of the Trump White House, that turned into a threat. Someone like Vance could discover that and sincerely feel appalled.

Apparently he also grabbed a 14th century weapon?

behind closed doors at the Pentagon [...] one U.S. official reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy

Seriously, 14th century is awful specific for a weapon's time period, unless it was one of the Swiss Guard's halberds, which, ballsy move there to try to threaten the Pope's envoy with one of his own guardsmen's weapons. Although even then, I think that'd have been 16th century...

The Avignon papacy was from the 14th century. That's all it means.

It's the pope. How many times in recent years has the pope not spoken up against war efforts?

Yes the papacy is typically against war, but Leo seems particularly passionate about this recent one.

Seems implausible, but I've been wrong before.

What is implausible about threats being made behind closed doors? If anything the Trump admin being openly aggressive against Canada and Greenland is the weird thing. But ok let's say this was done entirely without the top brass, it seems concerning that our under secretaries are apparently going around and threatening our allies and no one above in the chain of command knew about it/cared until it became public.

it seems concerning that our under secretaries are apparently going around and threatening our allies and no one above in the chain of command knew about it/cared until it became public

How would they have known? It's not like he's going up to them after the meeting and saying "Oh, by the way JD, just so you know I told the Pope's ambassador we'd go Avignon on his ass, you cool with that?"

How would they have known?

It doesn't seem like it was just Colby considering "and his colleagues". Did none of them think to report that they might have accidently threatened the Vatican with military force? Either Colby did a great job convincing the others that this was planned and to not report anything about it, the colleagues agreed with him (making it multiple admin officials who went with the threat) or it was ignored/supported by the upper brass.

But even if it was just him and he hid it, not a great sign when high up officials are covering up their mistakes instead of reporting them.

but Leo seems particularly passionate about this recent one.

There are two reasons for this- pope Francis was seen as overly conciliatory towards the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine(not totally without reason), and for internal Vatican political reasons this was a major mark against him, so Leo feels the need to make up for lost ground. And also Israel is bombing Christians in Lebanon; yes there's probably no way to invade Lebanon without doing this but the Vatican's perspective is perhaps more on the side of 'well they don't actually technically need to fight this war, now do they?' than about dispassionately measuring collateral damage.

This is the most maga pope ever. Maybe not on explicit agreement, but culturally completely. The popes brother is literally the ranting Facebook maga type and if I get bored maybe I will edit and go find posts.

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