site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   6630 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Europe isn't a country and we've been enemies with most of Europe one time or another. We're friendly now because none of them have an economy or a military that supports their self-image as "first world nations". Their choices for international big brother are Russia and us, so they side with us, but they hate us for it. The US' ability to influence international politics and project military power is a thumb in the eye for nations who used to be able to do similar things.

For what it's worth, this is all laughably incorrect in the case of France. Say what you will about the Frenchies (some of your second paragraph hits), but them pathologically always doing their own thing leaves them in a much better spot than the rest of the Euros.

Say whay you will about the French, but a Frenchman never apologizes for being French, and I greatly respect that about their culture.

pathologically always doing their own thing leaves them in a much better spot than the rest of the Euros.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure I see what you're gesturing at.

The French are pretty well known to value their independence highly, sometimes to their own detriment or at least that of their close friends.

There are countless examples for this:

  • military procurement: the French have always pretty much exclusively fielded their own military hardware. If you can even get them to consider cooperating with their alleys, they will usually nuke the entire project and then do it alone anyway. Never, ever, would they consider buying US aircraft or missiles. Annoyingly, this results in... decent hardware. Seriously, they spent comparatively little money - all of it domestically - and got a full nuclear triad (historically, today "only" sea and air), a blue water navy with expeditionary capabilities and carrier air wings, and an effective air force and army. This means not only do they not need a global Big Brother, they don't get bullied all that much.
  • the french decided that energy independence is important, and then just built 60 reactors. They have uranium only in their... colonies, so of course they just built a giant fuel rod reprocessing industry as a backup, invented at least half the relevant processes and then where done with energy for the next several decades.
  • less relevant now, but before SpaceX kicked everybody's teeth in, Ariane was an impressive system. Still is, in some niches. It's pretty much the embodiment of French refusal to fly on American or Russian rockets.
  • The French have slowly accepted that they're not quite a global superpower anymore, and I think this was a painful process. Still, they are notoriously bad at following their hegemon, i.e. the strong opposition to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and countless UN security council veto situations. They are also notoriously bad at keeping their finger out of Africa, and so far nobody important seems all that interested in stopping them.

Never, ever, would they consider buying US aircraft or missiles.

The French are flying US aircraft (E-2s) off of their aircraft carrier right now. (ETA: I think your post is directionally accurate, though.)

Oh wow, you are correct! They also fly the E-3, because apparently Airbus historically didn't have any AWACS in their portfolio? Maybe the western market is so small that it doesn't support two manufacturers (the French have 2 E-2s and 4 E-3s)? That must have been humiliating for them.

There are now lower-performance Western alternatives to the E-3 (and now the E-7), such as the Saab 340 (I think Embraer may also market one?) but that's not a carrier-based aircraft. The French Navy also used F-8 Crusaders until the end of 1999, so I suspect the French were willing to set aside their pride to simply buy a reliable off-the-shelf solution (carrier aviation is already hard enough.)

I wouldn't be super surprised if the French produced their own AWACs to replace the Sentry. I imagine the US had a bigger edge in airborne radar use and production during the Cold War than it does today, if only because the French now have a decent amount of experience operating them.

they will usually nuke the entire project and then do it alone anyway

FCAS cries out in pain

I blame the Germans - for trying that again. They should have gone to the French and told them "you do the jet, we do the tank. We only meet again when both are done, until then we trust each other not to fuck it up to badly - because we usually don't".

I blame the Germans -

So do the French! Lol

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