site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9338 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Really crazy. You'd think that Christians would think about what a just war is, compared to an unjust war, and come up with some kind of, uh, theory about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria

Just cause

The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

It fails this massively.

Last resort

The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.[81]

Fails.

Probability of success

According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable

Remote attacking of maybe-military bases has basically no chance of actually conquering Iran so it is just harassment which fails this criterion.

Competent authority

Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1969 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion.

Fails by deceptive clause. Although, my most controversial take here, I do not believe Trump or POTUS generally has competent authority. POTUS is popularly selected, not meritocratically selected, and most Ancient Christians would agree the USA system of government is structurally invalid. It is basically just mob rule. It's not different than some random street gang going to war. It might be worse because in theory the gangsters have gone through some kind of selective merit mechanism if they have survived for any length of time. The USA is a big never challenged plot of land run by a popularity government, the opposite of competent authority. And Trump embodies this perfectly.

Trump literally committed the worst sin by slaughtering the leader of Iran surreptitiously.

How do you feel about the assassination of Admiral Yamamoto during WWII?

During is pretty different from before, no?

You complained about the death penalty and war, not the specifics of the current war in Iran, and I answered that. I don't particularly care whether or not you feel any given current thing act of war fits just war theory or not, I'm pointing out that Christians have a perfectly good answer to the questions of war and, of course, the death penalty. The "what would 'Ancient Christians' (do you mean the Apostles? The Church Fathers? Constantine?) think" thing is pretty much incoherent, because formalized just war theory was Medieval rather than Roman - look how vague the theory from Ambrose is in the wikipedia article you're quoting. My suspicion, though, is that they would be significantly closer to "this is the coolest thing ever, bold Christian knights flew o'er the Ocean to capture a God-hating rebel, and annihilated a heathen prince with bolts from the sky!"

I'm pointing out that Christians have a perfectly good answer to the questions of war and, of course, the death penalty

significantly closer to "this is the coolest thing ever, bold Christian knights flew o'er the Ocean to capture a God-hating rebel, and annihilated a heathen prince with bolts from the sky!"

Okay with ethics like that why be anti abortion? We're back to it actually being about fornication because it ain't about valuing life.

Okay with ethics like that why be anti abortion? We're back to it actually being about fornication because it ain't about valuing life.

It turns out that while innocent life is worth protecting, those subjected to the death penalty aren't generally considered innocent, and neither are soldiers in a war under, to my understanding, a somewhat different model.

It turns out that while innocent life is worth protecting, those subjected to the death penalty aren't generally considered innocent, and neither are soldiers in a war under, to my understanding, a somewhat different model.

How do you decide who is innocent, and how is that Christian given original sin? Sounds contradictory and ad hoc.

And Trump literally committed the worst sin by slaughtering the leader of Iran surreptitiously.

I'm pretty sure it's well agreed that the Israelis murdered the ayatollah. Whether the US's participation in the war was instrumental in his death is certainly up for debate, but Trump was nowhere near ordering him to be blown up.

Additionally the list of criteria you listed is one of secular philosophy. Despite incorporating elements of christian thinking, the overall criteria is the result of secular thought.

most Ancient Christians would agree the USA system of government is structurally invalid. It is basically just mob rule. It's not different than some random street gang going to war.

Yeah and instead they believe that rule by kings an emperors is good and right. Murdering the previous emperor and taking power in a bloody coup like the Romans loved to do was a perfect and flawless example of legitimate secular authority in Jesus's teachings.

I'm pretty sure it's well agreed that the Israelis murdered the ayatollah.

Do we know that for sure? Any source?

Yeah and instead they believe that rule by kings an emperors is good and right. Murdering the previous emperor and taking power in a bloody coup like the Romans loved to do was a perfect and flawless example of legitimate secular authority in Jesus's teachings.

Asking the peasants which liar should be the tyrant is at best hardly better. Obviously a better form of government can be / has been designed but mob rule is kept for bad reasons.

Who were the ancient Christians??? Who were they???

You're the one who keeps bringing them up.

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