site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   35552 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 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.

What utility does knowing Iran's population matter? What relevance is the specific number of Iranians to any American interests?

If you're considering replacing its government by force, the size population you'll end up administering (at best) or fighting seems quite relevant.

Why? We're not looking to nation build there, last I checked, we're looking to nation destroy so they don't develop nuclear weapons.

Splendid. Nation-destroying Syria worked out so great for Europe, there's nothing that would bring me more joy than doing it again to country ~4x it's size.

Europe can, at any time, start enforcing its own sovereignty and defending its borders. I believe in you guys. I'm also not European, though, so if you fail, no skin off my back.

Realistically they are bound by international laws about refugees that they are unlikely to tear up. Also considering both the UK and France have a nuclear triad you don't want to destroy one country just to end up with 2 new nuclear armed foes in a few decades.

Realistically they are bound by international laws about refugees that they are unlikely to tear up

International law only requires the first safe country that the refugees reach to accept them, refugees aren't given free reign to shop around for the best place to live. The overwhelming majority of "refugees" that flooded Europe in recent years passed through multiple safe countries but Euro governments cucked out and let them stay anyway.

Realistically, there is no international law that America disagrees with, and that especially includes a rule of "you must let yourself be overrun by undesirables". I would personally sign up for Trump's Golden Gestapo to mow down orcs by the boatload.

I'm not sure where you are from but 'Bomb everything and then watch mass starvation, suffering and death whilst shrugging your shoulders saying 'Iran can't have nukes' sounds, at best, bizarre.

Like, at what point does nuking Israel just become a more humanitarian option to your proposals.

At no point does nuking Israel become better. The goal isn't to maximize some nebulous human flourishing, it's to keep nukes out of the hands of Islamic zealots.

Why? For some reason that's not some nebulous human flourishing?

More comments

I believe in you guys.

Thanks, but we're being ruled be literal lizardmen, and we don't have nearly as many guns in the hands of the common people as you do.

If that's true, then you're fucked no matter what happens in Iran. You'll eventually be washed away in a tide of foreign brown.

Israel has already moved their goals from “destroy nuclear sites” to “destroy ballistic missile capabilities”. But it isn’t easy to destroy all of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, perpetually. This is something that Cruz would know if he had even a passing curiosity in the country which his funders want destroyed. A 1 minute YouTube short would inform someone that it has a topography uniquely suited for hiding missile development and launch sites, with 370,000 square miles of mountainous terrain.

The “Iran is almost out of missile launchers” is eerily similar to “Russia is almost out of missiles” of 2022. Except the difficult part of launching hypersonic missiles is not the launchers, it’s the missiles, and they already have those in abundance.

So keep bombing them. Kill all their scientists, all their engineers. Transform the mountains into infernos. Let them all die to defend their ambitions.

The missiles aren't sitting on the mountains, they are under the mountains. For some sites like fordow it's unlikely even the largest conventional bunker buster in the US's entire arsenal would be able to penetrate. We don't have the power to simply destroy entire mountain ranges. Not even counting nukes.

One MOP may not do it, but the MOPs are made to be used in multiples.

A shame if the bunkers themselves are truly impenetrable. In that case, we'd have to destroy everything except the bunkers.

I really think you're delusional/mistaken about how powerful the US air force is at that kind of thing. It's built for precision strikes, not mass destruction (unless nukes). "kill every single scientist and engineer" and "transform mountains into infernos" is just not what they do. Israel wants them to use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP on Iran's mountain nuke research facility, but there's only 20 of them in existance and that's basically the only weapon capable of penetrating (maybe?) deep into a mountain. And Iran has a lot more than 20 mountains.

It's built for precision strikes, not mass destruction (unless nukes).

Yes, the USAF is built for precision strikes, but the US builds guided bombs the way the Russians build artillery shells. We've made over half a million JDAM kits (although of course we've used a lot of them). Assuming a stockpile of around 200,000, we have roughly one precision guided-bomb for every squad in the Iranian military. That's without getting tapping our inventories of cruise missiles, guided missiles, guided and unguided rockets, or cannon ammo at all.

The MOP is a bespoke weapon designed to fill a small niche, and the fact that it has been procured in small numbers doesn't reflect on the broader state of the USAF's procurement of guided weapons.

One way of looking at that is that Iran is 600,000 square miles, much of it mountainous, so there's roughly 1 bomb per 3 square miles. So not nearly enough to destroy the country with bombs alone.

Another way of looking at is is that Russia has been firing something like 10,000 shells a day for years on a country less than half the size of Iran, and it's still been a slow grinding war of attrition.

I'm pretty sure no one in the air force would claim they have the capability to destroy Iran with air power alone like what's being discussed here. Not to mention that Iran has spent decades building up its defenses against such an attack.

roughly 1 bomb per 3 square miles

I just want to highlight this here – 1 bomb per 3 square miles of a country larger than Alaska is a lot of bombs (and again recall that this is just JDAM kits!)

Now – what does "destroy Iran" mean? If it means "turn the country into literal molten lava" then no, the USAF does not have the firepower to do this.

If it means "knock out their power grid, obliterate their armed forces, wreck their transportation infrastructure, decapitate their leadership and generally render them incapable of performing the functions expected of a state" then yes, the US has the firepower to do this – the density of "Iranian military/government/dual use facilities/equipment" is not going to be denser than 1 every 3 square miles.

Perhaps the user you are replying to literally means "kill all Iranians" when he says "Let them all die to defend their ambitions." But if, in context of "Kill all their scientists, all their engineers" he's advocating for eliminating the Iranian leadership and personnel responsible for developing nuclear weapons, the US doesn't lack the firepower to do this. Since we've proven capable of building upwards of 100 JDAM kits per day, we might be able to kill upwards of 30,000 Iranian scientists, engineers, and assorted staff per year assuming each guided bomb only kills one (a silly assumption) without even denting our stockpile.

The main problem for the US would be getting the intelligence on where the personnel are (and clearing the Iranian defenses). But those are primarily problems of intelligence procurement, not problems from not having enough firepower.

It is a lot of bombs! But Iran is also a very large country!

I would highlight the second paragraph that I wrote- in terms of raw explosive yield, Russia has dropped much more than that on a country much smaller than Iran. Ukraine is (IMO) losing the war, but still very functional as a military power. I realize there's a big difference between old Soviet artillery shells and modern JDAMs, but there's also a big difference between Ukrainian infantry huddling in hastily-built trenches on the front lines of the plains, vs Iranian military engineers holed-up in fortified bunkers built under mountains over the past 20 years.

Your math is assuming that: (a) the USAF uses every single one of its bombs (b) all of thoses bombs are delivered instantly. The USAF only has about 20 B-2 stealth bombers, and they all require massive maintenance. Other strategic bombers would be vulnerable to air defence and are also limited in number (c) the US just doesn't care about collateral damage. Most of us care a lot. (d) all lf those bombs hit their intended targets. you said it's "primarily problems of intelligence procurement" but ultimately there's just no way to know all of that for sure. Realistically they would have to do a bit of "spray and pray." Multiple bombs per target, regardless of what Lockheed-Martin's sales reps like to claim. (e) Iran is not able to rebuilt its assets. They can and they will. They will also likely get help from Russia and China if this goes on for long.

In the end, I'm no military expert. But Ted Cruz isn't either. All I know is that Iran is a formidable opponent, and I'm very concerned that we're sleepwalking into a war on the scale of WW2 with none of our leaders seeming to even know the scale of what's going on. Instead they're going off of... bible verses and Israeli propaganda? This is very concerning.

edit: this just came up in my youtube feed: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PEbq0chC6yI "bottom line: the US could almost certainly destroy Fordham [the main Iranian enrichment facility] but it would require significant effort and expense." the video did not consider any other targets.

More comments

We can always make more. I'm not persuaded by material limits -- we're the richest people in the history of the species.

You're not? Cool. As a lefty, can I have your support on having a robust social safety net? Because I guess the budget doesn't matter now.

As a lefty, can I have your support on having a robust social safety net? Because I guess the budget doesn't matter now.

You cannot have my support for your pet projects, no. I don't want to fund them.

Oh, I'm sure you don't want to. I was more making snark about the fact that the most common refrain I hear is that everything needs to be cut because America is broke. Notably Ukraine, which is still going on, by the way.

More comments

There's been a suspiciously long pattern of US leaders thinking "we can solve this problem with strategic bombing, no ground invasion necessary." But then it turns out the strategic bombing is actually not that powerful, especially in a country as large and mountainous as Iran. This is a country roughly the size of the entire US west. It seems like they will always, inevitably be able to hide an enrichment facility somewhere. North Korea and Pakistan certainly did.

The problem is US leaders consistently failing to identify the real problem or lay out appropriate goals. Bombing can't nation-build. The US needs to utterly abandon its desire to nation build, to spread democracy, etc., etc. It doesn't work. What it can do is keep a non-nuclear power in the stone age with overwhelming violence.

Nobody went into Vietnam, Iraq, or Agahanistan thinking they wanted to nation-build. The plan was always "we'll just do a few air strikes against specific targets, then get out. should be easy."

It kind of sounds like you want to nuke them, with the way you're talking about "keep them in the stone age."

No, the fallout would probably hurt their neighbors. I'd prefer we stick to conventional bombs.

"Nation destroy" isn't sufficient in Iran. Israel probably could have killed off the regime's civilian/religious leaders by now. But if they did, Iran would just get a new set and they'd get right back to work building nukes. Because the lesson of Libya, North Korea, and Ukraine is if you want to survive and be independent of the world powers, you need nukes. An Iranian regime that is under US hegemony isn't going to come about except by force, and neither Russia nor China is in a position to take Iran within its orbit (not that they'd be likely to accept that either). So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.

So you'd need to either totally occupy or install a puppet regime backed by your military, (probably both in that order), and the population matters there.

Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward? I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.

Why does regular bombing campaigns leaving the country unable to create the necessary infrastructure not a viable path forward?

You don't need the US to be directly involved for that. Israel can handle it all on their own.

I see no particular reason we can't just annihilate them.

"Annihilating" Iran, Carthage (or Circassia) style, isn't on the table.

That depends entirely on who's making the decisions, I think. I'm going to vote for people who are okay with destroying our enemies.

It would help to identify our enemies first. Iranians are friendlier to Western Civilization than Israelis.

Uh, twelver Shia Islam being more compatible with western civilization than Judaism or Sunni Islam is pretty plausible, but Iran is definitely not friendlier.

No, the Muslims chanting death to America are not my friends, no matter how much you, I, or anyone else hate Jews.

Most Iranians are not religious and do not support the government, which sics foreign militias to oppress them. I speak Persian and have spent much time among them. Every couple of years there are massive riots, with thousands of deaths, as people fight back.

Even then, much of the Shia clergy opposes the regime; Khamenei isn't even a marja let alone the first among equals nor most popular religious leader within Iran itself. To concede a bit, at any rate they're friendlier than the Saudis and Emiratis, Shia are far more compatible and friendly with our world (but again, religiosity's similar to Czechia. Here's a survey giving 30% as Shia, only 40% as Muslim at all.)

strictly bans Western music and most other Western cultural output - @Hoffmeister25

Khatami relaxed that, already. Besides nowadays, everyone has a VPN. You can talk to plenty of Iranians right now, even with the attempted internet lock down, even if this isn't real. Personally, I'd only wish success to someone banning Disney, rap etc.

To react to your bailey, @The_Nybbler haven't many in this community opposed this government and arana imperii, ascribing modernity's ills to it?

More comments

Iranians are friendlier to Western Civilization than Israelis.

If you skip over the whole batshit Islamic theocracy and the "Death to America"/"The Great Satan" thing

Right, that and the fact that, as I understand it, the Iranian regime strictly bans Western music and most other Western cultural output, to the point where their people have to find bootleg version of American artists’ music. Yeah, very “friendly to Western culture.”

I don't think you'll have any luck finding serious American candidates who advocate for genocide.

Nonsense. It's par for the course for US politicians to support Israel over Palestine, and it's also par for the course for people to say that's a genocide.

We haven't seen an impassioned and unambiguous attempt at genocide by a first world country since the Holocaust. Israel's actions, as genocidal as they may or may not be, simply don't compare to the total national annihilation that I think you're envisioning.

Despite your fantasies, I don't think you are actually Holden Bloodfeast incarnate. It's easy to say that you want all your enemies (who consist of an entire ethnic group) to die in nuclear hellfire on the internet, but I'm confident you aren't actually sociopathic enough to push the button and witness the results yourself. In any case, nobody really wants the game-theoretic consequences of real genocide being back on the table. I certainly don't, as I'm not exactly lily white myself and I'd prefer p(TND) or even p(Liberia) to stay as low as possible.

More comments

Many have explicitly said regime change is the goal.

Change tends to be inevitable when you blow up the current regime! But that's substantially different from us, personally, trying to groom a new generation of good boys in the Middle East.

Sure, but I think it's fair to say that someone who is interested in regime change would be better off knowing some basic facts. It's of course not necessary - you can hold whatever opinion you want with or without facts - but an individual who has done some research is likely to be more adept at the decision making involved. It has utility.

At what point do you think the US military asks Ted Cruz for population estimates in order to plan the next bomber run?

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