site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18hr ago (text post)   2403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/white-house-admiral-approved-second-strike-boat-venezuela-was-well-within-legal-2025-12-01/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/some-us-republicans-want-answers-venezuela-strikes-despite-trump-2025-12-01/

Aaand (after previously denying it?) the White House confirms that a second strike killed survivors of an initial strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat. (Hegseth is joking about it) It even seems the purpose of the second strike was solely to leave no survivors.

Curious that the targeted smuggling boats have large crews, rather than conserving space and weight capacity for drugs...

  1. Anyone have a read on whether or not there are still "Trump is the anti-war President" true believers and, if so, how those people are trying to square the circle?

  2. The stupider this becomes, the more likely it seems that this conflict is a result of Trump's fixation with spoils of war and that he actually thinks we can literally just "take the oil."

Someone online pointed out that 18.3.2.1 of the Department of Defense Law of War Manual reads:

The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.

That second strike, if it happened, is literally in the manual as an example of an illegal order that would be a violation of the laws of war. I am as-yet unclear on how involved Trump or Hegseth were in this operation but it sounds like, minimally, everyone in the chain of command between Admiral Frank Bradley and whomever actually executed the strike is, at least, a war criminal.

My understanding is that it's actually more complicated, even if there was a strike purposefully for the purpose of killing two shipwrecked hostile non-state actors.

The quote you reference has a citation referring to a specific event where a military stopped and questioned lifeboats fleeing a sunk hospital ship.

After having sank the ship, the commander decided to ascertain whether the Hospital Ship was carrying combatants and approached the surviving lifeboats. After having interrogated them and having found no indication that the Hospital Ship was carrying combatants or munitions, the U-Boat fired at the lifeboats, sinking two out of three.

The citation should not taken to indicate that shooting everyone who's ever been shipwrecked is always illegal. For example, in the specific case referenced in the Manual, if the lifeboats had combatants or munitions it would have been acceptable to kill them. The Manual is giving a specific example of a time when soldiers were found to have committed an illegal act.

That said, I think it is more likely given the facts known now that no such order was given, and instead the order was to destroy the boat after the first strike did not do sufficient damage for mission parameters. The deaths of the narcoterrorists was incidental.

It depends very specifically on the exact orders, to far greater detail than available from current reporting even if you trust it. From 7.3.3.1 of the same document:

Incidental Harm Not Prohibited. The respect and protection due to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked do not prohibit incidental damage or casualties due to their proximity to military objectives or to a justifiable mistake. Combatants who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked on the battlefield are deemed to have accepted the risk of death or further injury due to their proximity to military operations. Although the presence of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked on the battlefield does not serve to exempt military objectives from attack due to the risk that such personnel would be incidentally harmed, feasible precautions must be taken to reduce the risk of harm to the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.

I mean, the Post's reporting is that the order was to kill everybody. That doesn't sound like the killing of the two initial survivors was incidental. That may turn out to be wrong, of course, but if it's accurate I am pretty confident saying it's a war crime.

Interesting that the citation for that section is not to an actual law, but to a post-WWI German War Crimes trial of two U-boat gunners.

Is the DOD Law of War Manual itself a law? Does it get to issue binding commentary? Is something illegal just because the manual says it is?

Legally binding documents:

International Criminal Court Elements of Crimes art. 8 (2) (a) (i):

War crime of wilful killing

Elements

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.

4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.

5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Second Geneva Convention of 1949 art. 12:

Protection and care

Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term “shipwreck” means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

The story I heard is thag Trump asked for the boat to be destroyed, and someone down the chain of command decided to shoot a second missile, which technically did not voilate his orders. There's a lot of leeway in ways to destroy the boat, and legally I can't see the difference between shooting the boat while it was undamaged, versus shooting it after it was damaged by a missile but still floating.

Anyways clearly the intention is to kill the people on those boats, so any screeching that the survivors were finished off will fall on deaf ears. Anyone who wants those people dead is still happy, and anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

Curious that the targeted smuggling boats have large crews, rather than conserving space and weight capacity for drugs...

There is zero credible argument that these aren't smuggling boats. Even the most biased anti-Trump news isn't making that claim.

anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

You know that's not the actual argument being made right? There's a lot of room between "just blow up boats because we said they had drugs" and "do nothing"

Most of the concern is whether or not they're even carrying drugs, something that the admin has not been forthcoming with evidence for to the extent that they even send back survivors instead of prosecuting them.

But ok, let's say that they are drug boats. Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway? People who sell drugs are not killing people, because drugs can not kill people in the same way guns can not just kill people. Drug deaths are suicides by the irresponsible drug users, whether on purpose or on accident. People may feel shameful if their father or brother or daughter or whoever ends up as a druggie and ODs, but blaming the person who sold them the drugs is like when leftists blame gun stores for shootings.

That doesn't mean we should or have to be legalizing them, there is no constitutional right to either use or sell drugs but the argument being used currently by the Trump admin is one of poor victims who aren't responsible for their own drug additions, and they need to be protected from the "terrorists" who provide the druggies the goods they want. An easier way to think about it is with a lesser harm, like if someone were to proclaim we should start rounding up Nestle and Coca Cola shareholders for victimizing poor Americans with obesity, because offering high sugar snacks and drinks is damaging their health. It's the same logic, they provide an addictive product that Americans use to hurt themselves with so are they not corn syrup terrorists?

We could ban high glycemic index products and we could punish people who kept selling them anyway because likewise there is no constitutional right to them. But calling the sellers terrorists for something the "victims" choose to do to themselves is nonsense. We ban those products so people can't hurt themselves from their own stupid decisions.

Most of the concern is whether or not they're even carrying drugs, something that the admin has not been forthcoming with evidence for...

There's not a ton of quad-outboard motorboats using that style of travel and large numbers of garbage-bagged wrapped cubic containers, as shown in the videos the administration has provided, and other countries have claimed to recover cocaine from the aftermath, but even if you don't trust either administration's assessments, from that Right-Wing Rag:

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela’s breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang.

to the extent that they even send back survivors instead of prosecuting them.

I'd be a little interest to understand what, exactly, that would work like.

Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway? People who sell drugs are not killing people, because drugs can not kill people in the same way guns can not just kill people.

The United States government ventilates the skulls of American citizens in predawn raids, while wearing masks and without clear 'police' markings and without any of the 'blaring messages saying to turn back' bullshit. I can't promise that absolutely every single person who suddenly cares about drug traffickers seems to have found their conscience, here. But if you've got an example, I'd like to see it.

Until then, that argument holds no water. That ship has sailed, exploded, and sunk to the seabed.

((That's doubly true given the common mix and mislabeling of various drugs by illegal sellers. Someone who decided to do cocaine only 'decided' to do fentanyl in the revealed preferences sense of not finding a better drug dealer.))

An easier way to think about it is with a lesser harm, like if someone were to proclaim we should start rounding up Nestle and Coca Cola shareholders for victimizing poor Americans with obesity, because offering high sugar snacks and drinks is damaging their health. It's the same logic, they provide an addictive product that Americans use to hurt themselves with so are they not corn syrup terrorists?

You're not presenting an argument, here.

the argument being used currently by the Trump admin is one of poor victims who aren't responsible for their own drug additions, and they need to be protected from the "terrorists" who provide the druggies the goods they want.

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.

There's an interesting strain of Latin American thought that goes something like: America blames us for the drug gangs, when we're stuck with the drug gangs because of American demand for cocaine.

(Hegseth is joking about it)

Direct link. I don't think this supports claims that he's joking about the second strike.

((Also, new Turing Test: how do RPGs work.))

Your own source says, "President Donald Trump, who is holding a meeting about Venezuela with his national security team later in the day, said on Sunday that he would not have wanted a second strike on the boat." So I'm not sure why your follow up questions are on Trump.

The Washington Post story is, "The Washington Post had reported that a second strike was ordered to take out two survivors from the initial strike and to comply with an order by Hegseth that everyone be killed."

Sean Parnell (Assistant to the SECWAR, Chief Pentagon Spokesman & Senior Advisor ) said, "We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday."

You seem to be implying that Leavitt's comment contradicts this:

"Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated," Leavitt said.

However, Leavitt's statement is not the Washington Post story. It actually contradicts it by placing the emphasis on the destruction of the boat, not the killing of the two survivors of the first attack.

So I'm not sure why your follow up questions are on Trump.

He's the President and started this conflict without a declaration of war from Congress, so... (Or do you think the whole thing is being run by staffers pulling a "Weekend At Biden's?")

Was the wreckage of a boat a threat to the United States of America?

Your first comment seemed to be about the new scandal - the double strike. Trump might have had very little to do with the double strike while still not being a "Weekend at Biden."

No, Trump is clearly doing something with Venezuela. But if you want to argue about the whole situation in general, it would require putting forward more of an argument on your part.

Trump might have had very little to do with the double strike while still not being a "Weekend at Biden."

Assuming that this occurred, until he fires the people involved, the buck stops with Trump. I'm fairly willing to believe that Trump might literally either not understand or not go into enough detail to care about the laws of war, but he employs several people whose job it is to keep him from tripping over his own dick. If all those people did not prevent him from doing this, or did this without his knowledge, he can fire them, or he can own their actions as his own.

Yeah, sure. But I haven't seen evidence of Trump being particularly bloodthirsty, which seems to be the implications being driven at.

Yes. This is a case that really looks bad -- it looks not only like the US killed some shipwrecked survivors of an attack (which is generally considered perfidious, right?), but that Hegseth not only authorized it but lied about it, not just to the press but to his boss. If that's so, he should resign.

However, the press is so unreliable that it's quite possible this isn't the case, and e.g. even if they're telling the literal truth, the second strike was not to kill survivors but to destroy a drug boat after a first attack failed to do so.

it looks not only like the US killed some shipwrecked survivors of an attack (which is generally considered perfidious, right?)

I am very far from an expert in this topic, but perfidy is stuff like attacking while under a flag of surrender or parlay, or the use of protected symbols for that purpose. Double-tapping survivors of an attack might be a violation in other ways, such as violating the concept of hors de combat, but that gets a lot more complicated; even attempting to escape can leave a combatant as 'in', and being incapacitated does not mean that you act as a human shield for other nearby legitimate military targets.

That's separate from whether it's good: it's possible for something to be a war crime and tots not a big deal (eg, the famous Doom health pack examples), and it's possible for something to not be a war crime and still show a significant moral lapse.

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