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 -
First, my whole point was that a "security dilemma" refers to last-resort measures and tangible existential threats, which are the exact situations where nuclear weapons change the calculus.
Second, I want to argue with you, not your pet robot.
It seems like there’s a misunderstanding of what a security dilemma actually is. It’s not limited to last-resort existential threats or nuclear contexts.
The term refers to a recurring structural problem in international relations, where one state’s defensive measures are perceived as offensive by another, leading to escalation—even if both sides claim defensive intent.
This applies to all levels of military posturing, not just existential brinkmanship. Arms shipments, base placements, even rhetoric can trigger this.
Just so we’re on the same page, here’s a straightforward summary from the Wikipedia entry:
If you think this only kicks in at the nuclear threshold, I’d seriously recommend rereading the foundational IR literature, or even just that page.
It’s funny you bring up robots. Personally, I’d rather consult a logic-checking tool than rely entirely on one worldview expressed in one language formed by one country’s political myths.
Some of us are navigating ideas across six languages, including dialects that evolved in parallel to Western nation-state concepts.
I’m not offended that you think that’s less legitimate than cowboy-tier geopolitics— just mildly amused that you thought “Texas is freedom land” was a mic drop.<3
You can consult all you want, but speaking frankly, a lot of your posts read like they were run through ChatGPT. We do not like people using LLMs to argue here. If you're using it for grammar checking, that's one thing, but no one here wants to argue with a bot, even if the bot has been told to express your argument for you. Unless you are willing to stop doing this, I will be unwilling to let any of your posts out of the new user filter in the future.
It's not the annoyingness of arguing with ChatGPT. It's that it calls your entire identity and presentation into question. On the surface, you seem to offer an uncommon perspective that would be valued here: a Chinese person with a Western-critical viewpoint. But bringing ChatGPT * into the discussion calls all that into question-- we have lots of trolls and sockpuppets who show up here thinking they are clever, and now I wonder if you're just one of them who got the cute idea: "ChatGPT, pretend you are a Chinese person critical of the West arguing with a forum full of Western rationalist nerds."
* I am using ChatGPT as a generic term here, but probably I shouldn't, you could be using any number of LLMs available nowadays.
I do use GPT-chan to help polish my grammar and phrasing, yes. But the core of what I post—my arguments, references, and even the scattered little complaints I can’t seem to edit out (like “Does ChatGPT remind itself not to binge and purge?”)—are all mine.
There are two main reasons I rely on it:
1.My English level isn’t quite strong enough to support long, technical, terminologically dense replies.
2.Even if my native language were English—or if, say, we were all in a parallel universe where this forum ran in Chinese—I would still use GPT for polishing. Why? Because TheMotte has a very specific house style: cool, articulate, often high-context. My natural voice is more like Natsuki from DDLC—filled with interjections, emotional fragments, and too many emojis. In this environment, that just looks immature.
As for the idea that I’m “a Chinese person critical of the West”—that’s… funny. I looked back over my old posts and realized I’ve barely said anything explicit about my views on the CCP. I hint, I sidestep, I use passive framing. Why?
Because being ambiguous on sensitive political topics is… a habit.
If I were the kind of idealist who loudly denounced the system and believed I could change society, I imagine my neighborhood police station would’ve flagged me as a “person of interest” by now, waiting for the next National Congress to invite me in for tea. (That’s a joke. I think.I hope.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You’re right. I’m used to seeing “security dilemma” deployed in reference to existential threats, since that’s usually when people are most motivated to find an excuse. It seems clear that the academic definition includes any sort of military advantage.
Would you agree that Ukraine reaching out to NATO was driven by a security dilemma? Or that Western support for Ukraine was likewise justified by the tangible security benefits of thousands of dead Russians?
There’s also the Taiwan situation. Increased Chinese influence in the Pacific is, of course, a threat to American hegemony. Does that make a preemptive deployment to Taiwan rational?
I appreciate you taking the time to engage seriously. That said, I think there’s a key distinction you’re missing.
First, it’s natural that I focus more on China’s actions. I’m Chinese. If a war breaks out across the strait, it could directly disrupt my life, my plans, my family’s future. Of course that weighs more heavily on my mind than the tragedy of Ukraine, which, while terrible, doesn’t immediately threaten me.
Second, I think you’re conflating very different dynamics under the umbrella of the “security dilemma.”
• Ukraine reaching out to NATO was a small country trying to secure its survival against a regional hegemon.
• U.S. deployment in Taiwan would be a global superpower extending military infrastructure directly into another major state’s core security zone.
These aren’t symmetrical. The actors, scale, and power dynamics are fundamentally different. Equating them as the same type of rational move erases the imbalance of power involved.
Lastly, when you frame Western support for Ukraine in terms of “the tangible security benefits of thousands of dead Russians,” it exposes a very narrow view of security—focused on enemy casualties rather than long-term strategic stability.
Real security gains aren’t about counting corpses. They’re about shaping the regional balance, undermining adversaries’ capacity for future aggression, and stabilizing your own influence network.
If we can’t differentiate between those layers, any discussion about security dilemmas risks collapsing into just “whose kill count is higher,” which I think we can both agree is an inadequate model for understanding international relations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link