site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   25043 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 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.

I think the weakness with this analysis is that it focuses mainly on Russia for the first two points and misses the context for Ukraine. Point number two is even more dire for Ukraine than Russia, especially manpower-wise. There's really no solution for it other than getting Western countries to send troops, and I don't see that happening.

My read is that Ukraine in 2025 is similar to Germany in 1943 -- everyone who knows anything about the war knows that the loss inevitable given the strategic picture. But still, they have to play pretend to keep the public morale high and go through the motions just in case Ukraine rolls a series of nat-20s, or to maximize its negotiating position, or to squirrel away more personal wealth. But just because the war is inevitably lost doesn't mean Russian propagandists are right and Ukraine is just two weeks away from collapse. It can still drag the war out for two more years and inflict hundreds of thousands more Russian casualties.

In 2025, Russian forces have made significant territorial gains in Ukraine, capturing approximately 165 square miles in the four weeks leading up to November 11, 2025. At these rates, Russia should be able to take all of Ukraine in a few decades.

If it worked like this WW1 would have ended in the 1960s or something. Just stop with this, it's stupid and makes me assume I'm reading assbrained worthless propaganda. The only worse thing you could do is start blurfing about the Budapest Memorandum.

Edit: Whoops I meant to reply to @theSinisterMushroom with this.

Budapest Memorandum

Can you give me a brief case against the Budapest Memorandum's relevance to this issue?

So the Budapest Memorandum said, in brief, that Ukraine would give up the Soviet nuclear weapons stationed within its borders, and in return the other signatories would agree not to attack them. Also, they would agree to go before the UN and raise a formal stink on Ukraine's behalf in the event that someone else attacked them. It wasn't an especially great deal, but Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch the weapons so their leverage was not that of a proper nuclear power.

However, Ukraine-aligned propagandists shitting up places like /r/worldnews love to refer to it as a "security guarantee" and behave as if it's outrageous that everyone hasn't declared war on Russia already. That and the aforementioned linear model of war where Ukraine loses its last mile of territory in 2060 are the two big tells that you're looking at pro-Ukraine, well, drivel.

Ukraine didn't have the ability to launch the weapons so their leverage was not that of a proper nuclear power.

Oh, come on. It was Ukrainians soldiers and scientists that maintained these weapons. Yeah, they didn't have the launch codes, but it would have taken them less than a year month to hack a solution to make them operational.

Edit: just to reiterate, since I drastically adjusted my estimate, the Ukrainian nuclear forces had full physical control over the ICBMs, had detailed plans for these weapons, had been maintaining them for years. The only thing they did not have were the launch codes

So about eleven months longer than it takes American and Russian forces to meet up and shake hands in the ruins of Kiev after they're branded a rogue state, you mean. Get out of here dude, nobody wanted them to keep those weapons.

Get over yourself dude. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the Ukrainians had decided to keep them, and the Russians/Americans invaded, they could have had two dozen hacked up nuclear ICBMs launched in days.

Edit: That said, they were never going to keep them, as never in their wildest dreams would the Ukrainians of the 1990s have predicted that Russia would be the one attacking them. And also, if the Russians had attacked, many soldiers would have refused orders to launch. But some still might have. Would you have taken the chance were you Russia?

Get over yourself dude. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the Ukrainians had decided to keep them, and the Russians/Americans invaded, they could have had two dozen hacked up nuclear ICBMs launched in days.

They get wiped from the face of the planet the moment anyone anywhere believes they're even vaguely contemplating such a thing. Fuck off with this stupid fanfic, dog.

You've had multiple warnings for low effort snarling. Banned for two days.

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