site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   22889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

HAPPENING NOW: ISRAEL LAUNCHES MASSIVE ATTACK AGAINST IRANESE NUCLEAR FACILITIES—AIR RAID SIRENS HEARD ALL ACROSS ISRAEL—MASSIVE AIR ACTIVITY OVER IRAQ-SYRIA BORDER—MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS CONFIRMED IN TEHRAN INCLUDING COLLAPSED BUILDING—IRANIAN FIGHTER JETS SEEN TAKING OFF FROM AIRSTRIPS NEAR TEHRAN—BALLISTIC MISSILE LAUNCHES REPORTED IN IRAN—REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS AT US BASES IN IRAQ—MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS HEARD NEAR IRAN’S NATANZ NUCLEAR FACILITY—VIDEO FOOTAGE SHOWING NATANZ NUCLEAR FACILITY BURNING—UNCONFIRMED REPORTS THAT THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE IRANIAN MILITARY HAS BEEN KILLED IN A TARGETED STRIKE

—Inb4 source

—Inb4 “low effort post ban” Additional facts and my thoughts will be added as the situation develops

Symbolic at best. Most Iranian nuclear facilities are buried deep underground, conventional weapons and likely even Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal are incapable of destroying them.

Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal are incapable of destroying them.

Israel has probably had hydrogen bombs since the late 1970s.

The military consensus appears to be, but correct me if I’m wrong, that many Iranian nuclear facilities are buried so deep that even direct hits wouldn’t necessary be slam dunk destructive to the facility. There are semi-reliable sources that claim the bulk of the most valuable development conducted at Natanz is 800m below ground protected additionally by dozens of meters of shielding. Even moreso than almost all of the US’ nuclear bunkers the entire facility has been engineered to withstand a direct Israeli nuclear hit from the get go, and the Iranians are widely considered competent engineers.

I don't know exactly why the IAEA claims that Iran has facilities 800m down, but as far as I'm aware reliable estimates place the new Natanz underground complex at 40-50m down, with the old underground complex much shallower but with about 7.5m of concrete shielding. The new complex is still under development, which is one reason Israel may have decided to strike it now. Fordow is 80-100m down and that provides protection from even US bunker busters - by the time you get to 800m you're reaching mineshaft-level conditions which require serious ventilation and cooling facilities on the surface to do anything resembling nuclear manufacturing (to put it another way, you could cripple the site just by blowing up the aircon). There's just no reason for Iran to go that deep, but it seems to me that they claim far deeper facilities because a bigger number is more impressive in the third-worldist mind, and international inspections bodies are pretty gullible.

I think the heat dissipation will be a similar problem with a depth of 50m. You will need active cooling either way, and the facility can be trivially disabled by attacking either the surface structures or the power lines.

The reason why you put your weapons program in the underground is not that you will be impervious from surface attacks. It is so that surface attacks will not set you back very much.

Fans and pumps for cooling, or electricity are not a bottleneck for the Iranian weapons program. Their bottlenecks are definitely gas centrifuges and enriched uranium, plus possibly engineers to design their bombs and raw uranium.

Also, if the Iran manages to put Israel in a situation where their best option is to be the first country in 80 years to use a nuclear weapon in anger, that itself would be a big win on their part. In retrospect, the obvious place for a nuclear facility would be deep under Tehran, so that when someone nukes you, they will also murder a few millions Muslims. It is certainly where Hamas would have placed such a facility.

Oh, heat dissipation, ventilation, etc. is definitely a concern at 50m too, it's just more of an issue at 800m (note that mineshafts are generally cooler than outside air at the start, then heat up as you go down). More stuff to get blown up on the surface, more difficulty repairing it after a strike. If 100m protects you from US bunker busters, no need to keep digging.

I'm seeing claims that Israel "destroyed" the underground structures at Natanz, but from the pictures going around it looks more like the kind of surface strike you describe - smash up the aboveground buildings and tunnel entrances to set things back and make the site a pain to clean up, ideally contaminate the site with the radioactive materials already there.

Hamas would have scavenged such a facility long before it produced anything. Rockets now or nukes later? The decision practically makes itself.

It is certainly where Hamas would have placed such a facility.

Hamas seems to be the only governing body on the planet where "deliberately putting your own people on danger" is seen as a plus, not a minus. I have trouble imagining, say, the Russian populace being used as public affairs shields by Putin on such a scale and putting up with it.

Do Hezbollah and the Houthis also do this?

Hezbollah to a limited extent, but they're not what I would have considered a full governing body. Houthis, I have no idea what their infrastructure or... anything there actually is like, I will admit.

I think it's because it's the only governing body on the planet that is ideologically bound to engage in total warfare against an opponent that dominates it in every way, so that losing in ways that creates a PR nightmare for their opponent is the only possible victory they can get.

I also find it fascinating not just for their decision to use it as a strategy, but for the population to go along with it with (apparently) only limited coercion required.

It is also probably the governing body whose leaders spend least time in the territory they govern. Your average tinpot dictator is most likely to be found in his Presidential Palace in his own country. Hamas leadership are most likely to be found in a luxury hotel in Qatar.

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