site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   17002 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?

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.

… 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?

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.

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.

I'd be happy to go into more discussion on this, but just as a first point, Protestants don't reject Sacred Tradition, they simply give it a lower status than Scripture itself. This is how the Bible tells us to treat Scripture. 2 Tim 3:16 - Scripture is God-breathed, i.e. it has a unique ontological status. Or Proverbs 30:5-6 - "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." Likewise we are given the positive example of the Bereans, who "searched Scripture to see if these things were so" in Acts 17:11 - in other words, they judged the teachings of men by testing them against the Scriptures. This should be an obvious principle.

Those who hold Sacred Tradition to be on the same level of authority as Scripture are the ones with a burden of proof. And it's quite a tough burden to reach when you actually look at the historical context of Church teachings, with such fun items as multiple co-existing Popes writing against each other, or dueling 'ecumenical' councils that came to opposite conclusions (see e.g. the Council of Frankfurt vs Nicea 2). Catholics also had to invent the concept of 'Development of Doctrine' to cover the fact that their Sacred Tradition has clearly and significantly changed over time.

Protestants don't reject Sacred Tradition, they simply give it a lower status than Scripture itself.

Depends on the Protestant. I grew up in a non-denominational Protestant church which absolutely would've rejected the idea of tradition having any sort of authority (which is the bit that makes it sacred). Their belief was that only the Bible had any authority over the Church.

Those who hold Sacred Tradition to be on the same level of authority as Scripture are the ones with a burden of proof.

That is, in fairness, not the Catholic teaching. Sacred Tradition is held to be authoritative, but with less authority than the divinely-inspired Scripture (so if there were ever to be a conflict between the two, Scripture wins).

That is, in fairness, not the Catholic teaching. Sacred Tradition is held to be authoritative, but with less authority than the divinely-inspired Scripture (so if there were ever to be a conflict between the two, Scripture wins).

I think you'll find this is not the case. Catholics hold Sacred Tradition and Scripture to be equal authorities, as they are both divinely inspired. What you have described is quite literally Sola Scriptura. If Catholics believed this there would be no disagreement over this issue.

I grew up in a non-denominational Protestant church which absolutely would've rejected the idea of tradition having any sort of authority (which is the bit that makes it sacred).

The confusion here is what constitutes tradition and authority. If that church's pastor told an adherent, say, 'you can't live with your fiancée before marriage or you will have to leave this church' - that would be authoritative over the adherent, based on that pastor's interpretation of scripture, which is what 'tradition' means. But it would not be as authoritative as Scripture. If someone could demonstrate from Scripture that this tradition/teaching were false, the paster would presumably need to recant it. That's what the Reformation was all about, identifying traditions that contradicted Scripture and trying to fix them.

In other words, the paster would disagree over which traditions are authoritative, and how much authority they hold. He would agree that any traditions of men should be held up to the standard of Scripture, and if Scripture contradicts the tradition then it must be discarded. But things as simple as holding a service with worship music and Bible teaching are not in Scripture - they are traditions that do not contradict Scripture.

If on the other hand you mean that your church rejected 'Sacred Tradition' in the sense of 'the specific traditions of the Roman Catholic Church' then, uh, no duh.

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