site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   22325 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sooo you don't have a response to the concerns about Mary?

Why are you on this website if you're not interested in defending your positions? Asserting without evidence that anyone who disagrees with you must be the same as James Talarico is not a defense.

My response is to ignore them, because they're the same material as has been going on for five hundred or so years now, and I'm not convinced by them. I'm sticking to my position on the permissibility of reverence done to the Blessed Virgin, and that if you try kicking out the female contribution to religion by the front door then it will force its way back in by the window (though I have little to no sympathy for the Divine Feminine nonsense).

Which is less Scriptural: we honour the mother of the Redeemer for her assent to the plan of salvation, or we deny the fatherhood of God because that is sexism?

I don't know who you think you're arguing with about 'denying the fatherhood of God'. That's a radical position that I certainly don't hold.

I also, again, think we should honor Mary - probably higher than any other person, save perhaps John the Baptist ("among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist" Matt 11:11). However, Catholic dogma requires me to believe things about her that I think are clearly false.

First, that she was conceived free from sin, and indeed never sinned at all. From Catholic Answers: "However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression." The article then goes on to argue that even though Romans and 1 John clearly teach that 'all have sinned', that Mary could be an exception since Jesus was also an exception. In other words, Mary was just as holy as Jesus. An insane argument in my opinion, but that's how Catholics have to justify their dogma! Besides all this, Jesus specifically rebukes Mary in the gospels. There's also no reason whatsoever to believe that Mary was conceived free from original sin except for the idea that Jesus needed a womb free from sin - but 1) God could make the womb sinless at the point of Jesus' conception, or any manner of other arrangements, and 2) this argument leads to infinite regress, because if Jesus needed a sinless womb, then Mary would need one too, as would her mother, and grandmother, ad infinitum. The whole thing is patent nonsense and directly contradicts clear biblical teaching.

I can go on, since most of the Marian dogmas are likely false, but that should give a basis for further discussion if you're interested.

since most of the Marian dogmas are likely false

Yeah, sure, try the same tired old arguments on me that haven't worked before and are not going to work now. Protestant churches with the 'correct' Scriptural views on Mary are now the ones committing heresy about "I don't want to refer to God as Father because that transgresses current, temporal, platitudes".

Oh good we're back to 'I'll ignore literally everything you said because I have no response to it'. And then you wonder why so many Protestants have a negative view of Catholics.

I had no intention of re-fighting the Wars of Religion and I probably should stop right now before the mods get involved, but [comment deleted]. Yeah, better stop now.

Music hath charms. Rejoice! From both wings of the Church.

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