site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26588 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

Trump deletes post depicting him as Jesus-like figure after backlash

Faced with growing backlash, US President Donald Trump appears to have removed a controversial Truth Social post depicting himself as a Jesus-like figure.

The AI-generated image, which showed Trump appearing to heal a sick man in a hospital bed, sparked fierce backlash from both sides of the US political spectrum, including from some of Trump's most ardent supporters. (...)

The now-deleted image showed Trump, wearing a white robe, with a glowing hand on the forehead of a sick man, which critics said was similar to religious paintings showing Jesus healing the infirm.

The background of the images included the Statue of Liberty, a large US flag fluttering, fighter jets and an eagle, as well as a nurse, a woman praying and what appeared to be a soldier in uniform. (...)

Criticism of the image came swiftly, including from figures considered close to Trump and the administration.

"This should be deleted immediately," wrote Sean Feucht, a Christian activist who is working on a series of faith-based events to mark the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence this year. (...)

Riley Gaines, a prominent conservative activist, wrote that "God shall not be mocked".

Much of the criticism also came from faith-based US news outlets.

"This goes too far. It crosses the line," wrote David Brody, a journalist with the Christian Broadcasting Network. "A supporter can back the mission and reject this."

If the image had been satirical, people would have dismissed it as too over the top. But Trump's taste is such that he posted this thing unironically.

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this? To me, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

I guess Trump is the best exemplification of the "from my point of view the jedi are evil". I already don't like the church as an institution, nor the way it concerns itself with third worldism nor it's followers blank slatist tendencies. So to me Trump turbo blaspheming isn't that shocking or offputting, yeah it's crass and egomaniacal but I kinda like that quality about him.

To me, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

Nope, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a giant troll with a juvenile sense of humor. He loves his own jokes and outlandish boasts. Sometimes others do not. I also have an impression he's not that devout Christian - I mean, he's probably in line with most of Christian morality, but he's not that deeply spiritual, so he may just have not appreciated how this would land with more serious Christians.

That's not to say Trump isn't a huge narcissist - he absolutely is (about 90% of top politicians are, many in much deeper and totally humorless way). But it's very unlikely he considers himself literally to be God or any other kind of supernatural being.

he's probably in line with most of Christian morality

apart from the bits about sexual morality, bearing false witness against neighbours, dealing honorably with social inferiors etc. (The Bible explicitly condemns stiffing workers, something Trump thinks is just obvious business savvy).

So basically he isn't in line with Christian morality.

I agree with you that while Trump is a huge narcissist, he doesn't think he is God. A worrying number of his core supporters think he is a Godlike figure (I remember Trump as the W40K Emperor being a popular meme back in 2016), and Trump is delighted to humour them.

A worrying number of his core supporters think he is a Godlike figure

That's an exaggeration too. Sure, they do the memes, that's what people do on the Internet. Pretty much none of them actually things he is a supernatural being worthy of worship. In fact, we'd find more worship of, say, Obama (who had been unironically called names like Lightworker and his supporters described feelings that can be characterized as religious ecstasy upon meeting him) than Trump. But even then it didn't raise to truly "Godlike" proportions. Sure, adoring people is as common (visit any pop music concert, or just look at the ticket prices) as it is un-Christian, but that's what happens. But it rarely goes as far and deep as true religious conviction. And of course, claiming this is a phenomenon somehow unique or special to Trump only reveals either ignorance or blind partisanship.

Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

This is undeniable. He's been slapping his name and face on any national icon he can and is presently in the process of trying to make the nation's 250th anniversary a massive ego trip.

A better question is what is it about Trump that makes so many of his supporters abandon their supposed values (Christian morality, patriotism, etc...) to not only excuse but effusively support him in a way that utterly surpasses normal partisan affiliation.

Are you asking a question or pretending to ask the question to boo the outgroup?

If you do ask the question, then the answer is they do not consider supporting Trump to be incompatible with patriotism, etc... and while Trump is not exactly an exemplary Christian (especially in his private life), his policies align much more with those that people who hold these values (and many other people who hold similar values while not being Christians) would endorse than the alternatives.

Not sure what you mean by "utterly surpasses normal partisan affiliation" - we know that it is normal for partisans to excuse their team for lying, cheating, fraud, racism, corruption, ignorance, being mentally deficient, being senile, and so on, while on the other hand, it is normal to compare their favorites to saints, gods, Jesus Christ and other spiritual figures. What part of Trump support surpasses that?

A better question is what is it about Trump that makes so many of his supporters abandon their supposed values (Christian morality, patriotism, etc...) to not only excuse but effusively support him in a way that utterly surpasses normal partisan affiliation.

Policies they like, or at least they can live with, compared to those of the other guy.

That would explain grudging support, whereas Trump's supporters are anything but grudging despite his negative VORP on substantive issues.

Most of the issue isn't value over replacement on substantive issues, it is value over replacement on beating Democrats.

MAGA supporters are right that Trump is more electable than a Goldman-Aramco Republican who wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and let another million H1Bs in, but I suspect they are wrong that he is more electable than a more competent, less divisive populist Republican like DeSantis.

but I suspect they are wrong that he is more electable than a more competent, less divisive populist Republican like DeSantis

I'm not sure DeSantis is better. I personally like him more, and would be glad to see him in the White House, but Trump is a much better showman and that counts for a lot in politics. I wish it didn't but it does.

  1. This post was not popular among Trump's supporters

  2. Trump's supporters are only about 40-50% religious, although nearly all of them are cultural Christians.

It explains both grudging support -- in those who feel the politicians they support following their values is very important -- and enthusiastic support -- in those who do not. Negative VORP on issues is obviously something they do not believe (certainly I do not).

I am not a Trump supporter, but I suppose I should weigh in with another Christian response -

This is obviously gross, blasphemous, and testament to Trump's narcissism, and in that light I think it tells us nothing we did not already know. We already knew that Trump cares absolutely nothing for God, Jesus, or any sense of human dignity. We already knew that he holds nothing sacred. He has been very clear about that. We also know that he is prone to like or retweet anything that flatters him, no matter how lacking in taste. This is of the same species as that AI-generated video of Trump in a jet dropping excrement on protesters. If it flatters Trump, he likes it, and because he has no sense of decorum about anything, he just shares it.

This reveals that Trump is venal, crass, self-centered, and so on, but again we all knew that. This does not tell me anything new. Maybe that Trump has a kind of contempt for all that I hold sacred, but that too I already knew.

Yes, it is vile, and the more people realise the extent to which Trump is a man wholly lacking in virtue, the better, but for me personally? It moves me not a jot.

(Assuming you're American) - Did you vote for Kamala? Just curious.

I'm Australian. I was spared that choice.

It really is incredible that neither US party could put forth a decent candidate. Unbelievable neglect of the world's greatest power.

You have to understand the context here. Republicans tried the nice guys for years. Romney was nice. McCain was nice. Even Bush was way nicer than Trump. What they learned from that? First: your nice guy will be declared literally Hitler anyway. There's no avoiding it, that's just how it works. Second: nice guys finish last. Cruz or Rubio wouldn't likely beat Clinton. To say nothing of Jeb!. Trump did.

Presidential candidates being thoroughly mediocre is pretty normal. There just aren't that many brilliant leaders out there, and in the US presidential system you're praying for the trifecta of: able to win a partisan primary, able to win a nationwide general election, and actually a competent executive. There is some overlap between the first two with respect to charisma, but they're mostly three distinct skill/capability sets.

However, it must be noted that 2024 didn't fit the pattern of people grudgingly voting for their party's nominee. Trump voters did not regard him as the best option amongst a subpar selection. They were (and for the most part still are) rapturously enthusiastic about him.

I don't it's mediocrity that is the issue here.

Isn't this combining two groups?

Trump does have a base that is rapturously enthusiastic for him - which people often call the MAGA base or MAGA crowd. But this group is not coterminous with those people who voted for Trump. He did not win 2024 with his base alone - and we can see now that even though Trump won the popular vote, his current approval ratings are far lower than that. It seems like there must have been a lot of people who voted for Trump but are not consistently enthusiastic about him.

Isn't this combining two groups?

Not really. There are some marginal voters who voted for Trump but don't like him, but the vast bulk of Trump's ~~77.5m votes in 2024 came from Republicans. Amongst Republicans he is still incredibly popular, both in terms of raw approval and in terms of the fervency with which he is supported. The MAGA base has essentially devoured the rest of the Republican Party.

The fact that the Republican candidate was mostly voted for by Republicans is surely to be expected irrespective of who the candidate is. Republicans vote for Republican candidates. But not all of those were genuinely enthusiastic about Trump, and of course, Trump won on the back of swing voters.

The initial question here was about Trump voters. I think there are at least three different groups under discussion here: 1) everybody who voted for Trump, 2) Republicans, 3) MAGA. There is substantial overlap between those groups, obviously, but as far as I can tell there are plenty of people in one group but not in one or both of the others.

It looks to me like Trump's approval among Republicans was mostly in the 80s while in office, dipped significantly while he was out of office, and is dipping again due to Iran.

More comments

Very much agreed. Trump got about 40% of the 2016 Republican primary vote if you only look at states which voted while the race was still competitive. Cruz voters don't need to hold their nose to vote for Trump, but I don't think they are any happier with him than they would be with another winning Republican who appointed pro-life SCOTUS justices.

I suppose I could be accused of dodging the question, so I should try to expand a little.

One of my red lines is that I will not vote for an unrepentant adulterer. Credible repentance and apology is needed before I will even consider it. Technically both Trump and Harris fail that criterion, though in Harris' case it's because, while single, she had an affair with a married-but-separated man. In general I feel that if you cannot keep faith in your personal life, you cannot keep faith in your political life. So even before we get into any other character issues, I could not vote for Trump.

The steelman of the case for Trump, to me, goes something like, "Yes, I know he is of terrible personal character, and that does weigh in my considerations, but a political choice like this has to be a kind of calculation about what's best for the country, and a bad man might nonetheless be the least bad choice for the country. It is a betrayal of the virtue of charity, and your obligations to your fellow citizens, to refuse to vote for a least-bad candidate for character reasons, because if the worse candidate wins, it is your fellow citizens who will suffer a worse result." A Trump voter aiming to persuade me would probably do best by not trying to play down or distract from the awfulness of his character, as revealed by things like these tweets, but rather by trying to direct me to concrete policy results.

For the first Trump term, I think they might have a strong case on consequentialist grounds like that. For the second term, it would be weaker. Would Harris have bungled the Middle East as badly as Trump seems to be? I can't prove a counterfactual, but I'm skeptical.

Still, if we're going to talk consequences, I would argue, I suppose, that the signalling value of a write-in or absent vote is more than zero, and perhaps a statement of lack of faith in the American political system, or of disgust at both candidates, would have about as much value as a single vote ever could.

I never actually faced this calculation, thankfully, but if I had been in the US, I suspect I would have left the vote for president blank or done a write-in, while still voting down-ballot.

By adultery, do you mean cheating (even if only technically, given that the man Kamala was with was separated), or does it include any form of extramarital sex?

I think that if you're trying to nitpick whether or not what you did was really adulterous, you're probably already in the red zone.

The underlying principle is that people who either don't keep their own most sacred promises, or who participate in helping others to break their own most sacred promises, should not bear the public trust. This is why e.g. someone who cheats in a same-sex partnership still fails the test, even though technically that's not 'marriage' in the sense that I understand the term.

You might be implying cases like a married couple who, via mutual agreement, sleep with other people? Like an open marriage? That does run afoul of my rule; I see how it's meaningfully different to traditional cheating, but it's still in my view morally disqualifying. This is also how I resolve cases of consensual polyamory - the interaction with my adultery rule is somewhat blurry, but as it is also disqualifying in itself, there is no need to resolve the exact relationship to adultery.

This is all just around the edges, though. Practical cases tend to look more like, for example, Barnaby Joyce.

Oops, I was confusing adultery with fornication. My confusion stemmed from "thou shalt not commit adultery" commonly being interpreted as also prohibiting fornication. I was actually asking about your opinion on non-adulterous extramarital sex.

I think that if you're trying to nitpick whether or not what you did was really adulterous, you're probably already in the red zone.

I don't think that should necessarily apply to politicians. Politicians have enemies who interpret everything they did uncharitably, so a politician may have to "nitpick" in response to them.

I care exactly as much as I would if it were Vishnu or Amaterasu.

(Well, okay - it would be funnier if he were also cross-dressing.)

If the image had been satirical, people would have dismissed it as too over the top.

It is satirical. It is over the top. Nobody “cares”. Your mom or grandma might disapprove but the only people taking this seriously are people who want to be mad at Trump. That includes a lot of Catholic and conservafluencers who feel embarrassed by the idea that religion codes right, so this gives them the perfect excuse.

To me, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

You say this as though this isn’t totally compatible with being a Trump supporter.

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this? To me, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

Boomer posts cringe on social media, news at eleven!

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this? To me, the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.

Maybe he just has dementia and got confused? Did he post it in the evening?

Perhaps an all too literal episode of this (props to Scott of course):

Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, where he was tempted by the Devil. After various lesser trials and temptations, the Devil led Jesus to the top of an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. And they stood there together, gazing upon the vista below.

"Behold," said Satan, mostly to break the awkward silence. "all the kingdoms of the world."

"They're very nice," said Jesus.

Satan's features - still faintly angelic - formed into a pout. "Really?" he asked. "Because I worked so hard corrupting them and turning them against one another, and..."

"No," said Jesus. "Not like that. I was just trying to be polite, really. They're teeming with sin and abomination."

Satan beamed. Some more awkward silence.

"So," said Jesus. "Is this the point at which you offer me lordship over all these kingdoms, if I only I bow down and worship you?"

"Nah," said Satan. "Like I said, they're kind of crappy. I'm here to tempt you, not insult you. I was planning something more interesting."

He waved his hand over the panorama, and it expanded in a hard-to-describe way. The three-dimensional view became four-dimensional; the vista became a manifold.

"Behold," said Satan again, "all the kingdoms of the world. Now and forever. Before you, the entire scope of history."

Jesus hesitated, not really sure what the polite response would be.

"You could at least smile!" said Satan. "Look! These people love you!"

Sure enough, it was true. Many of the kingdoms before them were Christian, building great cathedrals and writing beautiful works of theology in Jesus' name. Among the remainder, many were Muslim, revering him as one of the greatest of prophets.

"It's pretty encouraging," Jesus agreed. "So what's the catch?"

"Always the catch with you people," said Satan. "Well, if you insist. Take a look particularly at the psychiatric hospitals."

Jesus gazed through the manifold, where ten thousand psychiatric hospitals presented themselves simultaneously to his elevated senses.

"As you notice," said Satan "your popularity has had some fascinating side effects. In particular, a pretty good proportion of psychotics, sometime in their illness, think that they're you. I don't think either of us wants to sit here counting them all, but could we agree on a hundred thousand as a conservative estimate?"

"A hundred thousand psychotics who believe themselves to be Jesus Christ, across the entire scope of world history," agreed Jesus. "Sounds reasonable."

"And it's a pretty strong delusion," the Devil went on. "They'd dismiss the contention that they're not you with barely a second thought. Whatever their reasoning processes are, they seem to be bent in on themselves somehow so that they always affirm the conclusion."

"It's very sad," Jesus said. "I hope my Father in Heaven will have mercy upon them."

"That's not what we're here to talk about," said the Devil. "What I'm really interested in is this - given a randomly chosen person who's absolutely certain he's Jesus, what's the probability that he is, in fact, Jesus?"

"Well," Jesus answered "There are a hundred thousand psychotics who believe themselves to be Jesus, and only one real Jesus. So by Bayes' Theorem, we calculate that believing one's self to be Jesus gives one only about a one in one hundred thousand chance that one is actually Jesus."

"Your reasoning is impeccable," said Satan. "So, what is the probability that you're actually Jesus?"

"What?" asked Jesus.

"You are an individual with a certain amount of evidence that you are Jesus. Specifically, you believe yourself to be him. You have various experiences which your reason tells you are consistent with being Jesus, like memories of your mother Mary and so on, but these seem like the sort of thing a damaged intellect could create to support a delusion. You previously determined that a randomly selected person with the belief that he is Jesus has a 1/100,000 chance of being Jesus and a 99,999/100,000 chance of being a psychotic. So, Mr. Person With The Belief That He Is Jesus, do you think those numbers apply to you?"

Jesus thought for a moment. "I'm not a psychotic," he said. "I think I would know if I were psychotic. I'd have all sorts of symptoms. Hallucinations. Confusion."

"You know what the number one hallucination reported by psychotic patients is?" Satan asked.

Jesus thought for a moment. "What?"

"The Devil," said the Devil.

"Oh, that's just unfair," Jesus told him.

"Usually they report he's trying to tempt them to do self-destructive things. You know, like jump off tall buildings. Remind me what we were doing earlier today?"

"You set that up to confuse me," said Jesus.

"And you mentioned confusion. Tell me, where are we right now?"

"An exceedingly high mountain," Jesus answered.

"Which one, exactly? Because the tallest mountain in Israel is a bit under four thousand feet. That's hardly see-all-the-kingdoms-of-the-world height. Are you even sure what country we're in right now? And, uh, last time I checked I'm almost certain the world was a sphere. So what particular mountain do you think we're on that allows us to see all the kingdoms of the world?"

"Uh, well, there are no kingdoms in the Western Hemisphere at this point in history..." suggested Jesus.

"Wrong!" said Satan. "Zapotecs and Mochica! You don't know where you are, you don't know how you got here, and you don't know how you're seeing what you're seeing."

"You took me here," Jesus countered. "I assume you used some sort of devil-magic or something. I didn't watch where we were going."

"Oh please," said Satan. "Outside View! In general, when someone says the only reason they don't know what country they're in is because the Devil is magically clouding their mind, does that make them more or less likely to be mentally ill?"

"Mrhghn," grumbled Jesus.

"So let's recap. You believe yourself to be Jesus. You admit that you have been seeing the Devil, and that he commands you to jump off buildings, a command you resist only with great difficulty. You don't know where you are or how you got there, and your only weak explanation is that malevolent demons magically transported you there and meddled with your mind so you don't remember it. Using the Outside View, what is the probability that you are even remotely sane?"

"Look," said Jesus. "Could you just tell me what the temptation is already?"

Satan waved his hand, and a syringe materialized within it. "5 mg haloperidol, IM" he told him.

Jesus looked at the Devil. He looked at the syringe. He looked at All The Kingdoms Of The World. He looked back at the Devil. His brow furrowed in thought. He looked at the syringe again.

Then his eyes shone as the Holy Spirit flowed through him. His indecision vanished. "Your lies have no power over me, demon," he told his tormentor.

"Please calm down," said Satan, only now he spoke with the voice of a middle-aged woman. "We're just trying to help you, Mr. Anderson. Please just hold still and let me give you your medication."

"Get thee behind me, Satan!" shouted the Christ, and he pushed the Devil off the mountain. Satan screamed as he plummeted, screamed with a woman's voice, until he vanished from sight in the depths below.

Mr. Anderson

This crumb, a possibly nice little Matrix reference, that slightly allows an interpretation of the text that it really is Christ confronting Satan, is why I still treasure Scott's fiction.

Oh, even if it wasn't real Christ, "Christ" did absolutely the right thing here by rejecting the Devil. If everyone follows that reasoning and accepts that they are crazy it means the real Christ also gets caught up by it. Imagine Christ giving in to the Devil in exchange for 100k fewer psychotics across all of human history causing minor disruptions that are forgotten years after they die at the latest. Humanity would be in a very different place today.

Banger, do you have the link to the original post?

https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/3u39yg/a_collection_of_scott_alexanders_literary_works/

This one is The Last Temptation of Christ.

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.

It’s not impossible to have a civil discussion about this brand of drama, but you’re not going to get it by coming in guns blazing.

To be honest, I was just interested in what the forum had to say on this. My own comments were perfunctory, made solely to avoid falling afoul of the low-effort rule. I didn't really have anything to add. Was there a better way to do this?

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this?

It's funny and not that big a deal. An AI generated image like that of Lebron or Vic Fangio would be a perfectly normal thing on sports twitter.

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal of this. In the WSJ Doug Wilson said it was blasphemous, while Rod Dreher said that while Trump might not be the The Antichrist he was engaged in Acts of Antichrist type vibes.

His strategizing on social media has just been bad. There’s no excuse. The sort of mistakes that would take a normal person hours to devise on purpose in a room with high ceilings. “Criticize the Pope while the cultural moment has conservative influencers drifting to Catholicism… now depict yourself as Jesus. Make sure to put a demon figure in the background”. “Write the first presidential Alhamdulilah… on Easter. Then don’t write another tweet for Easter. Then post another Alhamdulillah a few days later”. “Call for civilizational destruction, to remove America from the moral high ground. Post it widely so military service members know to refuse your orders”.

There is no 4d chess happening behind the scenes. These mistakes are in his area of mastery, which was messaging and reading the room. I assume the mistakes he’s making with the war and negotiations are even worse.

You linked to the Truman Show?

As in, he’s not Ed Harris in the Truman Show manipulating the reality around us with control and insight behind the curtains. (There was a funny meme going around of Trump getting orders from Ed Harrison, but unfortunately I can’t find it again)

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this?

A disappointingly large percentage of the population really really likes to make AI slop images of themselves, and unfortunately, also post those images on the internet. Remember when the whole ghiblification craze happened? It never ended, and has only gotten worse as ai models have gotten better.

Unfortunately Trump is one of those people. I wouldn't read into it any more than just absolutely awful taste.

I myself am not completely immune to this, but at least I have the awareness to tell that nobody else wants to see this slop.

I am a bit confused about it. I made about three images, they were cute, they were better than a Photoshop filter from 2005, but then what? I didn't want to print them or anything?

I heard Anthony Scaramucci on his podcast give the theory that Trump would have posted the image (and done all the other recent catholic-baiting posts) in order to own JD Vance and maybe Rubio as well, who as the most prominent catholics in his cabinet will be obliged to defend Trump instead of their own religion. I can see how putting them in that demeaning position would satisfy Trump, don't know if it's really plausible though.

My own take would be that pushing the boundaries further and further to gauge pushback and keep going whenever there's not much resistance is just what he does. If people had liked these images he'd have been able to go full 'I am your God' cult leader, but sadly he didn't get a warm enough response.

I just don’t understand this one. The democrats have never cared about “blasphemy” in any form, in fact they quite often (especially with regard to Christianity) celebrate “transgressive” art that is often by it’s nature blasphemy against Christianity. The democrats defended the film “Last Temptation of Christ” that depicted Christ as struggling with homosexuality, they defended an art display that was literally a crucifix in a jar of urine. This only makes sense if the people using this incident are doing a pretty classic KTO-KEGO. If this were anyone other than Trump, no one would be talking about it.

Kto indeed. You are conflating several different groups.

The presidential twitter has more reach than any shock artist. I think you’ll find that most of the people complaining never said anything about Piss Christ at all.

Nitpick: it's "kto kogo"

Further nitpick: despite that being how it’s written in Cyrillic, in modern Russian it is pronounced something like “kto kavo”

The democrats have never cared about “blasphemy” in any form

Of course not and they still don't, this is all arguments-as-soldiers. They couldn't possibly care less but it's a "fun" excuse to get Trump's supporters to complain about him.

The democrats defended the film “Last Temptation of Christ” that depicted Christ as struggling with homosexuality

Possibly thinking of the play Corpus Christi or one of the other works. I could've sworn there was another movie by an Italian director but I can't find it on wikipedia.

The democrats have never cared about “blasphemy” in any form, in fact they quite often (especially with regard to Christianity) celebrate “transgressive” art that is often by it’s nature blasphemy against Christianity.

"Blasphemy"'s a wide category and is not amazingly helpful toward understanding this.

SJers generally celebrate things that denigrate or subvert Christianity, like the aforementioned Piss Christ and like depicting Jesus as black. Arrogantly claiming to be Jesus (at least without obvious subversion as well) implies that being Jesus is a good thing, which is not in accord with the SJ narrative. It's not the worst thing in the world by their standards, but AIUI they generally consider it negative from an ideological point of view.

There is nothing wrong with depicting Jesus as black; outside of the art of iconography(which has very specific conventions and rules), His appearance is completely arbitrary.

Depicting Him as George Floyd is idolatrous, blasphemous, and heretical, sure. But if African Americans prefer 'black Jesus' then that's fine, whatever. He probably wasn't blond either.

Is blond Jesus common? I mean, I can think of one blond Jesus depiction off the top of my head, sure, but it's the painting by Adolf Hitler and one must assume that's a bit unrepresentative.

I've seen a few, all from regions of the world with lots of blonds.

Well, I don't think that's wrong, but it's not something many people on the left will publically say and I think it's fair to criticize public positions as real, even if they are not. Piss Christ isn't officially blasphemous. It's not saying anything bad about Jesus; it's about how people have treated Jesus badly.

No, it's not. It's only purpose was to antagonize Christians, and that story was invented for gaslighting purposes.

The Last Temptation of Christ did not depict Jesus struggling with homosexuality. The book itself was deeply spiritual and I personally found it incredibly moving.

The film was not bad either and had a great soundtrack by Peter Gabriel.

The temptation of the title was a sort of alternate reality where he wed Mary Magdalene after having been deceived by Satan. I recommend the book in particular.

This does not speak to your point but I wanted to make the correction for the sake of accuracy.

Edit: He does not remain in the alternate reality.

A lot of those who are very upset about it, me included, are not democrats.

I think you're using the label "Democrats" to mean "literally anyone I dislike or disagree with".

The democrats defended the film “Last Temptation of Christ” that depicted Christ as struggling with homosexuality

Were Democrats (members of the Democratic party, people involved in fundraising for the party, etc.) defending the film, or just generally left-wing or progressive people? Are the defenders representative of the Democratic party?

they defended an art display that was literally a crucifix in a jar of urine.

This one is peculiar in that:

Serrano [the artist] said of the controversy: "I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ." (...)

On June 23, 2023, Andres Serrano was included among a group of artists invited to meet with Pope Francis in the Sistine Chapel as part of an effort to "broaden out the engagement of the church with artists" and to proclaim the church's commitment to supporting art that serves "to waken us up, call us to a new alertness and a new consciousness" about issues of social justice.[26] During this meeting, the pope blessed Serrano and gave him a thumbs up gesture of approval. Serrano remarked, "I was very happy that the church understands that I am a Christian artist and I am not a blasphemous artist. I’m just an artist."

Is the Pope Catholic Christian?

According to a 2025 poll, 62% of US adults described themselves as Christians. This percentage used to be even higher in the past – you know, when the Democratic party won majorities in elections. A very large proportion of Democratic party voters identify as Christians.

KTO-KEGO

"Who whom" in Polish with the latter misspelled? Do I have this right?

Is the Pope Christian?

The problem with the pope (pick any of the latest ones) is they don't believe in shotgun jesus. When any given statement from the pope could be identical to an internationalist SJ wokie with the numbers filed off it makes me despise everything they stand for.

Your objection is that they're not American nationalists? Do you know what the word "catholic" means?

And I doubt any "internationalist SJ wokie" would agree with their (very strongly held) stance on abortion.

I had no idea Piss Christ would get the attention it did, since I meant neither blasphemy nor offense by it. I've been a Catholic all my life, so I am a follower of Christ.

Sometimes people here act autistically in all sincerity. I don't believe that Serrano was. Nobody with the least bit of awareness of other people could fail to know that the most obvious interpretation of Jesus in urine is disdain for Jesus, and that it will predictably be seen as saying exactly that. Insisting that that isn't what he meant is a form of trolling. It's like saying "fuck you" and explaining that you merely wished that someone engage in a consensual, pleasurable, act, and why would anyone object to that?

Were Democrats (members of the Democratic party, people involved in fundraising for the party, etc.) defending the film, or just generally left-wing or progressive people? Are the defenders representative of the Democratic party?

Were the people 'defending' the film saying "It is good that it exists.", or were they saying "You don't get to demand that it not exist."?

If this were anyone other than Trump, no one would be talking about it.

If Trump weren't president of the United States no one would be talking about it.

It is certainly no patch on on dijonghazi or tan suitgate, but you expect a certain amount of decorum from your senior leaders that you don't demand from other people. Especially when it comes to mocking your own supporters by substituting yourself for Jesus.

If this were anyone other than Trump, no one would be talking about it.

Really? You sincerely think if another politician posted an image of himself as Jesus Christ no one would be talking about it? My priors on that are very different, to put it mildly.

Obviously democrats don’t care about “blasphemy” (for Christians at any rate), but the only people complaining about it being “blasphemous” that I’ve seen have been Christian sources, most of which are right-leaning. Democrat criticism appears to be on the grounds of delusional narcissism, tastelessness, and/or simple pointing and laughing.

Seems like those making blasphemy allegations are right leaning, or at least strongly Christian.

The democrats reaction more likely stems from the fact that this is a pretty strong instantiation of the idea that Trump has a savior complex and that ‘MAGA is a cult’. Add in the self-own of the leader of the Christian right committing blasphemy, and it makes sense why this is notable.

If this were anyone other than Trump, nobody would be talking about it.

Trump is the president, it’s more notable when he does unusual things. I think it’s safe to say it would have been national news if Biden(‘s staff) or Obama posted a picture of themselves as Jesus.

Also, not to nitpick, but Piss Christ and Passion of the Christ are from 1987 and 1988 respectively. I doubt most democrat (or republican) voters know what Piss Christ is, and probably more than a few have never seen the movie. Just seems odd to call this out as evidence of the democrats ongoing support of blasphemy.

There was a Manifold market: “Will Donald Trump tweet an image of himself as Jesus Christ?” Resolved yes

Any Trump supporters care to steelman this?

I don't like it, and I'm disgusted by it, but he's still a better pick than Kamala or anyone else the Dems have (or theoretically might) put forward as a candidate on any and all issues I care about. So yeah, the Dems are still so awful that Trump can blaspheme Christ and he's still better than the opposition ("Hey Jamie, pull up that clip of God being booed at the DNC").

Trump doesn't support the mass importation of Muslims and Hindus, though he definitely is only doing token opposition to things like H1B visas where it would really make a dent in stopping them. And yet I can't imagine the Dems doing anything other than increasing the amount of Muslims and Indians coming in.

So yeah, Trump is far from perfect, but he still manages to better serve my interests as both a Christian and an American than the opposition.

The counterpoint is that it's not just "Trump vs a Dem." The more reasonable expectation is that the Republican primary is where Republicans would be expected to offer better options to a right-leaning voter. Trump won that by a mile.

The Republicans have been putting forward milquetoast RINOs for decades, and I (and most Republicans, though for the record I'm not a Republican I'm a member of the Constitution Party) grew tired enough of it that they didn't trust any establishment candidate the GOP put forward.

But once the shape of the 2016 primary became clear, Trump was running against Cruz, so "I want a real Republican and not a RINO" doesn't point to a Trump vote.

I know a lot of people who thought that way did vote for Trump over Cruz, and it sounds like you were one of them. I would be interested to hear what the logic is - was it simply that Trump was hated by the GOPe even more than Cruz was, or was it a specific policy or issue? (The small number of non-Mormon conservative Americans I know all voted for Cruz, although they thought of it as a 2 good options scenario rather than holding their noses and voting for the lesser evil).

I would think a lot of them probably thought that since all the RINOs lined up behind Cruz once it became clear that Jeb, Rubio and Kasich were not gonna beat Trump, that a Cruz administration would just become RINO central, even if that's not what it would have been in a counterfactual world where Trump didn't run and Cruz beat Jeb, Rubio and Kasich.

Did the RINOs line up behind Cruz? My memory is that Kasich went the distance until it was mathematically impossible to beat Trump and the RINOs supported him in doing so.

I just checked and yeah, Kasich dropped right after Cruz, but his campaign was very dead way ahead of that, with Cruz being the last credible obstacle to Trump's nomination. The reporting at the time was indeed that the establishment had lined up behind Cruz. Bush and Rubio endorsed Cruz.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/23/ted-cruz-is-the-republican-establishment-candidate-thats-absolutely-insane/

I don't think the counterfactual Cruz that won without Trump being in the mix would have been a bad president (if he had any chance in the general, which I doubt), but a Cruz that won the nomination as the GOPe's last stand against Trump would have had a different mandate.

Thanks. The UK media had lost interest at some point before then once it was clear to anyone who wasn't wishcasting that Trump would win.

Yeah, but other Republican candidates weren't necessarily better than Kamala, or were perceived as worse than Trump at winning the general election. There's tonnes of these kind of strategic concerns people have when making their choice. Everybody knows this when they're talking about their own side (why do you think the Dems picked a shambling corpse for a candidate that they later had to eject in the las minute?), but conveniently forgets it when talking about their enemies.

Trump's ability to unite a wide coalition during the election was one of his great strengths. He got mainstream republicans, right wing populists, religious people, silicon valley tech bros and others to join his coalition.

In the last few months he seems to have swung in the polar opposite direction by doing his best to alienate as many groups as possible. Tucker is low IQ, Candace is ugly, the pope is weak, Elon Musk is crazy. Trump as Jesus upsets Christians. In foreign policy he has done his best to sour relations with as many countries as possible. Trump seems to have become a complete megalomaniac who lashes out at anyone who isn't worshipping him. His coalition is going to fall apart.

His coalition is going to fall apart.

That's what they said when he went after the Gold Star family. And on many other occasions, I believe. I predict ol' Donny's going to wiggle his way out of this one effortlessly.

As someone from the left, watching Trump voters has often felt like watching someone meet their idol, seeing said idol punch them in the face, and then the fan explains to onlookers that it was just a friendly greeting.

Iran has thus far felt that if anything can end MAGA's love affair with Trump, it's watching "no new wars" fall apart. And that has certainly had some impact, but the Teflon still hasn't completely come off yet. As for all the "little things" up to and including blasphemy, I've long given up on the idea of the camel's back being broken no matter how much straw is added to it.

The Iran war is a risk, but as long as Trump doesn't lose or get into a nasty quagmire, he can get wiggle out of that one too.

Yeah, it's worth remembering what it felt like being inside the Trump bubble, for those who seem to have fallen out.

On a side note, to the extent that people have been falling out, I'm not sure that will matter much. Post-Trump GOP will be an interesting thing to see. And hopefully not completely disappointing, though that is probably a safe bet.

I think Trump genuinely doesn't understand the least bit of Christianity. This is not to defend or excuse him. By itself a statement like, "The US President doesn't understand the least bit of Christianity," would have been a horrible insult just a few decades ago. Welcome to the new USA.

It's just like if someone from Japan shared a AI-Generated image of them being Jesus without realizing what they were depicting. Neon Genesis Evangelion gets away with using Christianity as an aesthetic, because it looks exotic and cool. Trump did something similar. I'm about as offended by one as I am by the other. I don't think it indicates a God Complex anymore than Hideaki Anno has shown himself to have a God Complex.

Neon Genesis Evangelion gets away with using Christianity as an aesthetic, because it looks exotic and cool.

I will say that, while true in a sense, I understand this line to be a common overcorrection. Evangelion's Christian (and Judaic) imagery didn't come from some deep place of spiritual belief, but it wasn't really a careless choice made out of blissful ignorance, either. The Japanese, too, have libraries and the ability to research things, and our religion has had more of a historic impact on them than vice versa. It's sort of akin to a Hollywood movie that incorporates a lot of references to Buddhism - the filmmakers may not have been Buddhists themselves, but at some point it's clear that they did the reading.

This is my default explanation for anything that Trump does. The last decade has proven to me that he's unthinking and uncaring at the best of times, and the last 2 years has made me believe that he's entered a stage in his life that aren't the best times. Also, I think that the conclusion that he's a narcissist with a god complex is pretty easy to reach independent of this, and trying to claim that this post adds meaningful evidence of this seems rather silly. I'm reminded of around mid-late 2024, when some media outlet presented the argument that Trump was fascist/Nazi/Hitler-like (I don't recall exactly which), and a bunch of people were breathlessly pointing at the argument as some novel point that should convince former Trump voters, as if calling him giga-Hitler hadn't just been SOP for his loudest opponents continually since 2015.

Neon Genesis Evangelion gets away with using Christianity as an aesthetic, because it looks exotic and cool. Trump did something similar.

Why do we live in the reality where Trump is appropriating Christian iconography instead of Evangelion? Trump making an illustration of himself in one of those skintight fan service suits would have broken open at least three of the seals.

NSFW: https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/10537472

A more hilarious image would be Trump as Senator Armstrong, replete with "nanomachines" and lewdly overdetailed arm/torso muscles.

Trump would totally be Gendo. He became president as part of a larger plot to reunite with his dead brother, but first he needs to support Israel and wipe Iran off the map in order to fulfill a prophecy from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Get in the fucking bomber, Barron!

(Who would make a better Miasto, Kristi Noem or Tulsi Gabbard? Kristi is hotter, but Tulsi has actual military experience.)

Definitely Tulsi Gabbard. In that leather jacket, hoo boy.

Well, not AI, but now since you mentioned it.

/images/17761989090854647.webp

the most parsimonious explanation is that Trump is a narcissist with a god complex

I'm a big Trump supporter. I concede that he has narcissistic tendencies although I don't know if he is diagnosible with anything. I would guess that the experience of being shot and completely avoiding serious harm due to fortuitous circumstances would exacerbate these tendencies in most people.

Anyway, I think it's pretty common for successful politicians to have personalities which lean towards the so-called "dark-triad" of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sociopathy. Bill Clinton struck me as being at least somewhat sociopathic.

So my defense of Donald Trump is that sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. At the moment, there is a huge threat to the United States from Leftism, Progressivism, Wokeism, whatever you want to call it. The sort of people who hate America, hate white people, hate men, etc. The sort of people who will seize on any excuse to seriously oppress their perceived enemies. The sort of people who seriously think it's a good idea to put confused children through sex-change procedures. Donald Trump, generally speaking, opposes all that.

In my view the same character aspects that make Trump a gauche, offensive, tone-deaf goof are what allow him to say "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them," "Grab em by the pussy," and on and on up to the repost of himself as a healing messiah-- but also to stand up defiantly to the crowd who is saying the (naked) Emperor's new clothes are fine and beautiful. He can and does reject out loud many of the progressive left points of faith, with no apologies. Whether he does this because he's old and isn't interested in adapting, is simply preaching to what sees as his support group, or has thought it all through, Motte-Style, and reached his own conclusions, I cannot say.

In usual terms we would say "He has no filter." Which in many, many cases is refreshing and admirable. His standing against transgender ideologues is probably the one issue I really have to respect him for (if respect is the right word). He has walked a more ambiguous line on race issues, but certainly doesn't mouth the pat opporessor and oppressed line of most of his antagonists. Etc.

I would normally say it took great courage in a politician to be so contrary so publicly, but he isn't really a politician in the sense I use the term, and I'm not sure courage is the right word (maybe fearlessness).

As for narcissism, let's remember it's just a word a bunch of "mental health professionals" agreed on how to define. He's definitely full of himself in an almost pampered child way, though he also has a resilience and toughness that allow him to withstand repeated verbal assaults on his character by everyone from the NYT to mainstream comedians to any rando who wants an easy butt to his joke, jibes about his appearance that would be deemed hateful if directed at anyone else, and at least one fast-moving bullet. This would have mentally crushed any normal (sane, if you like) person years ago. I hesitate to say anyone is one-of-a-kind but he's certainly close.

Obviously this is low-effort, boo-outgroup, and a particularly lazy case of "arguing with the forum", so I'll be brief: there's a long tradition of people making hilariously hagiographic pictures of politicians they like. Think Boomer facebook. Trump seems to have no filter on retweeting/retruthing these things - the most recent 'controversy' iirc was a video of him dumping manure on a No Kings protest - so he saw this, liked it, and retruthed it (or someone on his team did, where it gets weird is that someone apparently ran the image through another AI to recreate it, which is what added the odd symmetrical Statue of Liberty silhouette, and I'm sure that Trump isn't mucking around with ChatGPT).

If you are looking for evidence that Donald Trump is a narcissist - I know, it's a shocking and contrarian thesis to suggest, but we can explore even the wildest ideas here - I'd recommend starting with the giant gold tower with his name on the front.

Really, really cringe things that associate elements of the American civic religion with Christianity are pretty dime-a-dozen in red tribe art, such as the most hilarious painting of all time: Jesus holding the Constitution of the United States while a Supreme Court Justice weeps.

It's exceptionally gauche to make such a piece of artwork of a living politician, but I'm sure it happens on the left too from time to time. That people invest this kind of hope in politicians is pretty ridiculous to me, but they do, and silly stuff like this results.

I think most people have generated a "what would I look like as a medieval X/what would Y look like as a Christian saint" image using AI, it's a fairly common pastime. Sharing it on social media is pretty ridiculous though.

Trump is pretty narcissistic, and this may be a symptom of that, but it's far from the most insane thing he's ever done and at this point the truth is that his supporters' support for him is something that's not amenable to anything that actually happens, and the hope that many on the left/center have that some scandal will destroy his popularity among his base just isn't going to happen. Even the Christians who were outraged by this still "back the mission."

That's a great painting. Yes, it's a very Red-coded thing, partially because it's so boomerish - the big exception for the Left being Obama, who was also beloved of his tribe's boomers.

I also doubt that more than a lizardman-constant % of the people reacting are genuinely offended Christians who loved Trump until this outrage. It's just social media being social media.

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