site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2d ago (text post)   1569 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for April 2026

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@naraburns:

@TitaniumButterfly:

@orthoxerox:

@charlesf:

@solowingpixy:

@OliveTapenade:

Contributions for the week of March 30, 2026

@Amadan:

@thejdizzler:

Contributions for the week of April 6, 2026

@birb_cromble:

@Rov_Scam:

@RandomRanger:

@BigObjectPermanenceShill:

@EverythingIsFine:

@OliveTapenade:

@ControlsFreak:

@IdiocyInAction:

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@SpringFish:

@Shakes:

Contributions for the week of April 13, 2026

@cjet79:

@faceh:

@RandomRanger:

Contributions for the week of April 20, 2026

@self_made_human:

@Rov_Scam:

@Bombadil:

@Amadan:

@CrispyFriedBarnacles:

@urquan:

Contributions for the week of April 27, 2026

@RandomRanger:

@MonkeyWithAMachinegun:

@AmrikeeAkbar:

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I want to piggyback on your reply and disagree with @Amadan's take:

Something a lot of Christians forget is that many atheists are either former Christians themselves, or have had enough exposure to Christianity that they understand it even if they don't agree with it. We are perfectly capable of reading Lewis and Tolkien and "getting" what they are saying about God and faith and morality.

I think there's still an important difference. A Christian can read Lewis and interpret the book as a direct moral lesson, a form of guidance. An atheist steeped in Christianity will read the same book, understand that it's intended to provide moral guidance to Christians, but it won't affect him in the same way. The message for him is not "here's how you might turn away from God and here's how redemption and forgiveness might follow", it's "here's what Christians think turning away from God would look like". Which is useful knowledge if you have to deal with Christians, but not directly applicable to the reader himself.

Pratchett's message is different. "How do you survive in a world where amoral beings more powerful than you do things for shits and giggles? How do you do the right thing when doing the selfish thing is easier? What even is the right thing?" are questions for which a Christian has easy answers, but an atheist doesn't.

Just like an atheist might fight Lewis interesting and useful, so can a Christian find Pratchett useful. But it's a different impact. "Oh, so that's how they justify doing the right thing! Good thing you can just follow the word of the Lord IRL."

I think there's still an important difference. A Christian can read Lewis and interpret the book as a direct moral lesson, a form of guidance. An atheist steeped in Christianity will read the same book, understand that it's intended to provide moral guidance to Christians, but it won't affect him in the same way. The message for him is not "here's how you might turn away from God and here's how redemption and forgiveness might follow", it's "here's what Christians think turning away from God would look like". Which is useful knowledge if you have to deal with Christians, but not directly applicable to the reader himself.

I think it depends on how much you believe people are able to empathize with a mindset different from their own.

An atheist steeped in Christianity because he has an intellectual understanding of it but never believed probably will, as you say, only read it as a description of how Christians think. But an atheist who used to be Christian, especially an atheist who used to be devoutly Christian, will actually remember how it was to think that way. While obviously he's not going to read Lewis as a "direct moral lesson" since he no longer considers turning away from God to be something that requires redemption and forgiveness, he still knows what it is like to feel that way.

I think the same is probably true of atheists who become converts. Your Christian who used to be an atheist knows how an atheist deals with the unfairness of the world and what an atheist thinks about the Problem of Evil and what an atheist thinks is the reason to do good and not evil. And so will probably understand and even feel the satisfaction of Pratchett's lessons even if he thinks Pratchett got it wrong by excluding God.

Do you think regular normie movie goers know that Narnia and LotR are related to Christianity? I'm curious, because to me this was not obvious at all. It's just fun adventure stories in the cinema.

Narnia was so blatantly obvious that I got it as a kid. LotR is a more nuanced story, I agree, you have to dig into the lore first to see the references. Maybe it's different if you're raised Anglican.

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