site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21hr ago (text post)   2794 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.

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'.

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.

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.

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