site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   24127 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.

3
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.

is literally in the manual as an example of an illegal order that would be a violation of the laws of war.

Well, if that's true, screw that manual and screw your laws of war. You don't let the enemy survive after you've drone striked them once. You finish the job. Nothing in the calculus changes that led you to issuing that strike just because you didn't do a perfect job the first strike.

I agree, this seems to me a perplexing point to focus on. For instance the US used delay-action bombs specifically to target rescuers and firefighters trying to put out fire in burning cities during WW2 and beyond - some of those bombs are active to this day in Germany. As of now you can go and watch similar tactics being used in Ukraine war, where you have literal videos of drones bombing wounded, kneeling and praying soldiers, you have videos of double-tapping tanks and APCs including soldiers seeking refuge under such vehicles and more.

Double-tap operations were famous under Obama, where drone strikes targeted either rescue operations or even funerals of terrorists. But maybe this is the critique? Arguably Hegsegh is stupid and he should have done Obama style duble-tap operation, where the military waits for rescue vessel picking up the drowning terrorists only to bomb them again or maybe bomb attendees at their funeral or hospital visitors? The famous sniper tactics of purposefully only wounding the target and letting him alive as bait to kill medics and other valuable targets of opportunity.

Arguably Hegsegh is stupid and he should have done Obama style duble-tap operation, where the military waits for rescue vessel picking up the drowning terrorists only to bomb them again

I'm pretty sure no one was coming to pick up the drowning drug dealers.

...other than the fact that they are no longer a threat to you.

Are they more or less of a threat to me than a terror suspect attending a wedding in some Afghan village?

Less, given that they are hors de combat, while the terrorist in the Afghan village is still capable of perpetrating armed acts against you.

Which "combat"? There's no "combat" between a narco-boat in the middle of the sea and a drone flying a mile overhead. If anything, the "combat" began is when the drone operator identified the target, and it ends when the target is destroyed. Saying it in a fancy way doesn't change anything.

Less, given that they are hors de combat

The terrorist in the Afghan village is not engaged in combat at all. He is not engaged in terrorist activities by attending a wedding, there is no reasonable standard by which his immediate actions constitute combat. Yet we bomb him and those around him anyway. If this is acceptable, which it evidently has been for decades now, then it must be because his allegiance is sufficient to justify striking him, regardless of his present actions. And if that be the case, how does similar logic not apply to narcos in boats?

By what moral logic is it acceptable to bomb a crowded wedding to kill one of the guests, but bombing narcos engaged in smuggling becomes a serious crime only when the second bomb drops? What do you suppose the first one was for?

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.

In addition I think there is currently a strong attempt by the Democrats to force meme 'don't obey unlawful orders (read: any orders given by the administration)' into the zeitgeist. Apparently, the FBI have opened an investigation into the video made by military and intelligence officials, presumably to see if it reaches the benchmark of 'sedition'.

Apparently, the FBI have opened an investigation into the video made by military and intelligence officials, presumably to see if it reaches the benchmark of 'sedition'.

What update am I to make from that? If Trump tweeted that Harris was BBQing babies, I am sure his lapdogs at the FBI would dutifully waste taxpayer money to investigate her for child murder and cannibalism, not release a press statement "this is absurd, we are not looking into that."

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.

the Post's reporting is that the order was to kill everybody

The Post's reporting is that an unnamed source claims the order was to kill everybody. If we're going to nitpick, do it right.

On one hand, Hegseth was picked because he looks like a made for TV movie secdef, not for competence. On the other I trust the average journalist less far than I could throw them. I find it believable that he said something that stupid but I'm not going out of my way to trust unnamed sources in a biased context, either.

On one hand, Hegseth was picked because he looks like a made for TV movie secdef, not for competence.

You're misreading the situation on that one. Hegseth is still too young and pretty to have the look Trump would prefer for SecDef.

Hegseth was picked because he had publicly beefed with the Generals about how the military should be run. Some of their behaviour in Trump's first term was frankly illegal, eg lying to Trump about troop counts in Syria. Trump needed someone who knew enough about the military and was willing to be adversarial.

Was the order to kill everyone issued after the first strike, or before it? Was the order to initiate the second strike to kill survivors, to destroy remaining parts of the boat, or to prevent recovery of drugs? Were the survivors showing clear signs of surrender such that they could be easily captured without any risk or serious cost to other military goals, or were they trying to coordinate over radio for a pickup by their compatriots? These things all matter, and as far as I can tell, none of them are even considered in the original Post reporting so far.

I don't know what the situation is. I don't trust The New York Times any further than I trust WashPo, and I don't trust any politicians further than I could throw their house, and somehow admin members speaking anonymously managed to be even less trustworthy.

And I'm very far from an expert on the laws of combat. But I notice the certainty of others, and how little they argue for how they know what they 'know'.

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.

Second Geneva Convention of 1949

To apply, wouldn't the crews need to belong to "Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices of the merchant marine ... of the Parties to the conflict..." (literally "the following Article")? Are these boats Venezuelan-flagged vessels? I strongly suspect they're not because that would have raised a whole bunch of other arguments (literally acts of war) that haven't been brought up.

They're not flagged. Since the treaties comprising the laws of the sea were written by people representing nations, who had very little regard for stateless entities and none of it good (considering them brigands, pirates, or worse, libertarians), there's really no or almost no protection for them in those treaties.

Nobody likes non-flagged libertarians.

There are a couple of relevant conventions about stateless persons, but those seem to mostly boil down to "don't make people stateless" and even those aren't universally accepted. But Western nations are more prone to letting them live indefinitely in airports than issuing death warrants for private persons. Boats, on the other hand, don't even get that protection.

The us is not a party to the ICC and the ICC is a joke.

Terrorists are not covered by Geneva conventions.

And even if people want to argue over the definition of terrorist, "non-uniformed combatants" in general are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (or most of the laws of war in general). Non-uniformed combatants are generally punished when found via... summary execution. Whether or not alleged drug dealers allegedly bringing drugs to the US (allegedly on behalf of the Venezuelan government) count as non-uniformed combatants is a whole different question though.

is a whole different question though.

And one with a well-known answer. Merchant seamen are civilians, even if they are transporting contraband. Hence the theory that the drugs and not the people were the legally relevant target - if the drug war was a real war, the drugs would be a legitimate military target and the sailors would be acceptable collateral damage but not a military target in their own right.

Which is probably part of why the US is claiming they are military irregulars operating under the command of the Venezuelan government: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8j4ye5x0mo

Whether or not that claim is true is, again, an entirely different matter. But if they are then they are both non-uniformed and operating flagless vessels in international waters, which means the amount of protection they have against pretty much any action another state chooses to take is effectively zero.

But if they are then they are both non-uniformed and operating flagless vessels in international waters,

There is no requirement for merchant seamen to wear uniforms, or for merchant ships to fly their flags in international waters (unless asked to by a warship of any nationality). For the crews of the drug boats to be unlawful combatants, they have to be fighting out of uniform. Otherwise "they are members of TdA and therefore Venezuelan irregulars" (which I agree is probably the Trump admin's position) would make them combatants currently not fighting - which means the people (but not the boat) would be valid military targets, but subject to GC protections (including against continued attack after being shipwrecked)*

The legal position that makes the boat a military target is that the drug war is a real war which triggers Article 2 war powers and the international law of armed conflict, and that shipping drugs is a belligerent act. And indeed that shipping drugs from Venezuela to Trinidad is a belligerent act against the United States based on the ultimate destination of the drugs. The only people who have historically taken that position as regards shipments of weapons were supporters of unrestricted submarine warfare in WW1 and WW2.

* The distinction the Geneva Conventions make between combatants not currently fighting and combatants rendered hors-de-combat (sick, wounded, surrendered, shipwrecked), while clear as a matter of the current international law in force, doesn't quite make sense in the context of off-battlefield drone strikes. The fact that you can legally (subject to normal considerations about proportionality of collateral damage) drone-kill an off-duty enemy soldier in his bed at home, but not in his hospital bed, doesn't really serve a logical purpose. The fact that you can legally drone-sink a civilian boat (again subject to proportionality) in order to kill the off-duty enemy combatant passengers, but not finish them off once they are in the water, is producing mildly absurd results in the instant case.

More comments

Second Geneva Convention of 1949 art. 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Commentary ¶ 489 (applying to the first-quoted paragraph):

The object and purpose of common Article 3 supports its applicability in non-international armed conflict reaching beyond the territory of one State. Given that its aim is to provide persons not or no longer actively participating in hostilities with certain minimum protections during intense armed confrontations between States and non-State armed groups or between such groups, it is logical that those same protections would apply when such violence spans the territory of more than one State.

Commentary ¶¶ 893–896 (applying to the last-quoted paragraph):

This provision confirms that, while humanitarian law provides for equal rights and obligations of the Parties to the conflict in the treatment of people in their power, it does not confer legitimacy on non-State armed groups that are Parties to a conflict.

Furthermore, it serves to underline that, as international humanitarian law applies based on the facts, regardless of whether a State qualifies the members of a non-State armed group as ‘terrorists’ or its actions as ‘terrorism’, humanitarian law applies if and when the conditions for its applicability are met.

The denial that groups that a State has labelled as ‘terrorist’ may be a Party to a non-international armed conflict within the meaning of humanitarian law carries the risk that the non-State armed group loses an incentive to abide by that body of law. This in turn reduces the ability of humanitarian law to serve its protective purpose. Humanitarian law seeks to protect civilians and all those who are not directly participating in hostilities; it does this in part by obliging Parties to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and military objectives.

Nothing since the introduction of common Article 3 in 1949 has altered the fact that the applicability of humanitarian law to situations of non-international armed conflicts does not affect the legal status or enhance the legitimacy of non-State armed groups. This remains as essential today as it was at that time, as any other interpretation will almost inevitably lead States to deny the applicability of common Article 3 and thereby undermine its humanitarian objective.

I don't think the ICC rules apply to the United States. (Isn't there an literal statute repudiating them?)

The Geneva Convention is your best bet, but it's pretty vague. I don't think anyone actually wants our armed forces interpreting it literally (okay, some people want that, but I'd wager most people don't, especially not if we were in a real war with enemies who shoot back.)

I never put much stock in the, "we would never follow illegal orders," shtick in the first place. If the military wants to do something in wartime, they'll do it.

I will caveat that the Second Geneva Convention only applies between contracting parties by its own terms, so unless Venezuela wanted to do the funniest thing, it's not clear how binding it would be here. But the United States tends to flip back and forth about whether it wants to apply the same rules regardless, and it'd probably be a good idea.

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