site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32006 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 2025

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Christians blamed the Jews (the civilians) and not Pilate, who ultimately sentenced Christ, for his execution.

Because the New Testament correctly attributes the cause of Jesus’ death to the Jews who instigated His crucifixion. The Romans were the useful golem who achieved the Pharisees’ ends; the Roman provincial leadership were never much interested in what they perceived as internal Jewish squabbling over another potential Messiah. To wit, from 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15.

“For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind…”

I think it's fair to blame some Jews (not even all Jews) of the first century for Jesus' death. The real error that Christians made was a) blaming all Jews for this, and b) transferring that guilt onto their descendants. No crime is so monstrous that an entire race of people should carry that guilt. There were plenty of Jews even at the time who were innocent of the crime (for example, Mary, all the apostles minus Judas, etc), let alone their descendants centuries later.

The gospels are very clear that guilt for the déicide transfers to the unconverted descendants of the Jews(that’s what ‘orémus pro perfideis Judaeaorum…’ actually means).

transferring that guilt onto their descendants

If the New Testament is to be believed (and I believe it) the Jews that killed Christ willingly chose to transfer that guilt to their descendants (inasmuch as such a thing is actually metaphysically possible I suppose, but I'm not here to debate Original Sin):

"And all the people answered and said, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'"

Matthew 27:25

I’m not really interested in arguing over who was to blame for the death of Jesus. Clearly It was obviously extraordinarily historically convenient for the later extremely successful proselytizing of the religion to Roman elites that the singular Roman elite who factually ordered the death of and chose the method of execution of (and had the power to spare) Jesus was absolved of all responsibility and even venerated by many early (and some current) Christians, but that is not an argument in and of itself.

I think the point of Jesus’ death is that he was killed by the legal leaders, religious leaders, and the general public. It wasnt one party but the whole.

Not a theologian, but the whole conversation strikes me as Big Dum. How is Jesus supposed to die for our sins, if he does not, in fact, die? If anything the Jews should be seen as the same kind of useful golem to Gods grand plan that he says the Pilate was.

He had to suffer, but not through you.

He had to be dishonored, but not by you.

He had to be judged, but not by you.

He had to be hung up, but not by you and by your right hand.

Melito of Sardis, "On Pascha," writing sometime between 120-160.

It's important to remember that Christianity rejects Consequentialism - even if God can bring good from evil, it's still bad to be the one whose hands are in the cookie jar. It was God's role to save, not humanity's role to pin Him down into a specific method of salvation.

Yes, but what I was taught was that what killed him was our sins (I'll take a guess that this is what is meant by "by you" here), not the specific actions of the Pilate, the Pharisees, or the population of Jerusalem.

Specifically here, Melito is explicitly talking about Jews. There may be some devotional aspect intended, that recalls to us our sins and their consequences, but look at the context:

O Israel, what have you done?

Is it not written for you: "You shall not spill innocent blood"

so that you might not die the death of the wicked?

"I" said Israel. "I killed the Lord."

Why? "Because he had to die"

You have erred, O Israel, to reason so

about the slaughter of the Lord.

He had to suffer, but not through you.

He had to be dishonored, but not by you.

He had to be judged, but not by you.

He had to be hung up, but not by you and by your right hand.

This, O Israel, is the cry with which you should have called to God:

"O master, if your son should suffer,

and this is your will,

let him suffer indeed, but not by me.

Let him suffer through foreigners,

let him be judged by the uncircumcised,

let him be nailed in place by a tyrannical right hand,

not mine."

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