site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   2831 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.

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.

Or, you know, we could take them prisoner?

Or, you know, we could take them prisoner?

There are significant logistical difficulties in doing this before the boat has been hit by a missile. Afterwards, they apparently have been, when reasonably possible.

If you're referring to the purported double-tap specifically, well, is there any good reason to think such a thing happened? You're not seriously taking an anonymous anti-Trump report from the Washington Post at face value in 2025, are you? One so perfectly timed with a Democrat Party psyop that it was almost certainly coordinated? Pity that CIA-Afghani dude went and shot a couple of National Guardsmen who were following "illegal according to Democrat Senator winking and nudging" orders. Really messed up the flow of the news cycle.

You're not seriously taking an anonymous anti-Trump report from the Washington Post at face value in 2025, are you?

The WH confirmed it:

WASHINGTON, Dec 1 (Reuters) - The White House on Monday defended a U.S. admiral's decision to conduct multiple strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel in September, saying he had Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's authorization, even as critics questioned the legality of a strike on survivors. The Washington Post had reported that a second strike was ordered to kill two survivors from the initial strike and to comply with an order by Hegseth that everyone be killed.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he would not have wanted a second strike on the boat and said Hegseth denied giving such an order.

But White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that Hegseth had authorized Admiral Frank Bradley to conduct the strikes on September 2.

"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.

...

Do you read the things you post?

60% of the time, every time. Is this a complaint that the WH confirmed the second strike occurred, but disputed Hegseth's orders?

That's the most obvious problem:

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

and

"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.

Are not completely incompatible, but they're very far from confirmation, and in some ways very specifically in contradiction ("ensure the boat was destroyed"). And Hegseth's specific denial isn't much reason to be generous -- he's a politician! -- but it by definition can not be confirmation.

More subtly, "double-tap" has a specific meaning. While no one's using the strict 'hitting a bomb site to hit first responders' bit, here, it matters very heavily whether the second shot was solely targeting survivors or targeting material; this distinction would be a major difference in between a war crime and a legitimate (if not necessarily ethical) strike. This, likewise, wasn't confirmed by the White House.

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

Is it? I mean I've seen that expressed from time to time, but isn't it generally indistinguishable from generalized anti-Trump complaints like opposition to law enforcement and immigration enforcement, being pro-nonwhite persons, etc? The Mark Kelly statement which some on the right are referring to as the "seditious six" seems to me to be something he's probably said before and seems to fit perfectly into statements made about basically every Trump action of all time.

If South American cartels were running guns into the US that were used in the deaths of over 100k Americans per years, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun runners?

If South American cartels were running guns into the US that were used in the deaths of over 100k Americans per years, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun runners?

Only in direct response to normal contraband-interception-operations being attacked with lethal force. Declaring war launching a Special Military Operation against smugglers "Narco-Terrorists" Foreign Terror Organizations is fucked up.

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.

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