site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29157 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 15, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The idea that all arms-limitation treaties are meaningless "toilet paper" is absurd.

For example, the previously-mentioned CWC has UN inspectors visiting the chemical production facilities of signatory parties (and these inspections regularly happen even in US facilities). These inspections allow states to be reasonably confident that other states are not mass-producing chemical weapons and meaningfully reduce the risk of accidental war. (Notably, Iraq was not party to the CMC prior to 2003, did not have these regular inspections, and so international observers were uncertain about Iraq's stockpiles and production capabilities. Saddam Hussein gambled that this uncertainty would make war less likely, but these non-existent chemical weapons were ultimately how Bush/Powell convinced the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq.)

Arms control treaties are rarely designed to change a state's behavior during a war. Instead they are designed to change the way states prepare for war. These changes in preparation do impact whether and how wars are actually fought.

Yes, when the interests of a nation with a military powerful enough to enforce it on other nations aligns with the text of a treaty, it gets enforced. This has nothing to do with the value of the treaty and everything to do with the value of a military powerful enough to enforce it and the interests that power has (or thinks it has).

The treaty influences the interests that a power thinks it has. And the domestic and international support it gets. If Turkey suddenly starts bombing Libya with normal bombs, the U.S. might not get involved. If Turkey suddenly starts gassing them with chemical weapons then the U.S. might get up in their face about it and either attack them or provide defense to Libya (possibly in exchange for concessions). It would have no bearing on the actual strategic value to us of invading Turkey or defending Libya, but politicians care about getting re-elected, and telling people "we helped defeat the evil chemical weapon users" sells a lot better than "we picked a side in a war".

Power is ultimately derived from strength. But power that does not move does not count, and treaties are an excuse to move for anyone who already wanted to but lacked a sufficiently official reason.

This is a non sequitur. Good treaties define Schelling points, and Schelling points do not need enforcement.

As I mentioned before, no one has a military powerful enough to enforce the CWC on the US and yet the US is voluntarily complying because it makes the US a safer place (and increases trade/commerce) to allow these foreign inspections.

The criticism of the Five Power Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 is that it didn't prevent WWII, the defense of the treaty is that it prevented the Anglo-American War that would have broken out in 1927.

How likely would that have been? I know international relations are fickle, but they usually only turn on a dime in cases where an alliance of convenience is papering over underlying hostility or where one party's government is utterly replaced by hostile opposition.

I don't really know, I haven't overly examined the question, I'm just quoting a history professor I had in undergrad.

There were politicians at the time who thought it was necessary to ensure that there would be no conflict between the Atlantic empires.

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