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.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump deletes post depicting him as Jesus-like figure after backlash
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 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.
"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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of those who are very upset about it, me included, are not democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you're using the label "Democrats" to mean "literally anyone I dislike or disagree with".
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?
This one is peculiar in that:
Is the Pope
CatholicChristian?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.
"Who whom" in Polish with the latter misspelled? Do I have this right?
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."?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link