site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   24975 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026

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.

I love that you had to specify "thousands" and "on American soil" to exempt Iran and Russia killing or facilitating the deaths of thousands of Americans other places. And confusing willingness with capability.

Here's a funny twist you might not be aware of: There were allegations before 2003 that Saddam had supported Al Qaeda. That wasn't true.

But it is true that Iran has been hosting Al Qaeda in Iran for years at this point.

For the overwhelming majority of American history, the US stayed out of Middle Eastern conflicts and miraculously during that time never had to fear the risk of conflict with Iran or Syria.

Ever heard of WWII? The Cold War? We stopped being isolationist a long time ago. The Islamic regime chose to make us an enemy.

I love that you had to specify "thousands" and "on American soil" to exempt Iran and Russia killing or facilitating the deaths of thousands of Americans other places. And confusing willingness with capability.

Yes, because there is categorical difference between killing occupying soldiers in combat and killing civilians in a terrorist attack.

Ever heard of WWII? The Cold War? We stopped being isolationist a long time ago.

You're proving my point; before the Cold War America had no problems with the Middle East. From the perspective of the average American as opposed to a Lockheed executive or a lobbyist for a foreign country it has been all cost for no benefit. Isolationism produced superior results to imperialism.

Were the Marines in Lebanon in combat?

I suppose you believe we should have stayed out of WWII as well. Should we have resisted global communism? If you're a committed isolationist then I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

Should we have resisted global communism?

Communism is a completely dysfunctional, unworkable system. America could resist global communism the same way it resisted European imperialism, by providing an example of a successful alternative instead of beating the communists by copying them. Or as John Quincy Adams put it,

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

The past century of American imperial domination have proven Adams right.

That was not gonna keep Soviet tanks from crushing all that they could.

Or Chinese.

Sorry, the USSR managed to industrialize and become a major military power despite the dysfunctional system.

FFS, just look at what a shithole North Korea is. Guess what though? They have a massive military and even nukes.

Except the Soviet tanks couldn't even handle their neighbors and wound up bogged down in Afghanistan whereas the Chinese tanks similarly couldn't make it past Vietnam. A massive military and nukes are worthless without the massive economy to back it up; the Communists never figured out economics and were perpetually gimped in that respect. The Soviets only achieved significant conquests when they were fueled by American lend lease.

The real growth in Communism didn't come from Soviet tanks imposing it by force, it came from anti-imperialist movements adopting it pragmatically after America chose to back the European imperial powers after WW2 for some reason. Ho Chi Minh famously was a fan of the American system until they turned him away.

You do realize we were funding and backing a lot of the resistance the Soviets faced in Afghanistan, right?

The real growth in Communism didn't come from Soviet tanks imposing it by force, it came from anti-imperialist movements adopting it pragmatically after America chose to back the European imperial powers after WW2 for some reason.

That is not a great reading of history, particularly concerning Eastern Europe following WWII.

Also it's pretty funny because of how much pressure the US put on the imperial powers it "backed" to give up their holdings.

The anti-interventionist take against the US facing down global communism is one I'm used to arguing with leftists about. Good job taking a new line.

I suppose you believe we should have stayed out of WWII as well.

The standard narrative on WWII is vulnerable to the complication that in defeating one set of horrifyingly evil tyrannies, we made alliance with and gave away half the planet to another set of at least equally-horrifyingly-evil tyrannies, who we then could not prevent from decimating, immiserating and enslaving the half of the planet so ceded, which we then had to spend the next two generations containing at ruinous cost, and whose ideology fatally poisoned our own nations. I think it's pretty easy to be happy that we crushed Hitler and the Imperial Japanese, while still noting that the outcome was not something we should see as the way we want to do business going forward.

Further, World War II appears to be a pretty contiguous outgrowth of World War I, where we "made the world safe for democracy" in a way that appears to have laid the groundwork for incalculable ruin over the subsequent century.

I think we are, at this moment, enjoying the twilight of our own Belle Epoque. The lessons that I draw from the last century is that fighting to impose control over the whole world is utterly unworkable, hubristic and ruinous. We have more than enough problems at home; we cannot afford to fix all the problems of the wider world.

You don't have to convince me that the US should have taken strong action against the USSR and Red China, since obviously that went poorly for us later on.

And continues to. We got lucky the Cold War went as well as it did, and we have to hope our rivalry with China goes well.

(Of course, one major difference between WWI and WWII is that the Axis did attack us and declare war on us.)

I think WWII does come from the ashes of WWI--undoubtedly--but Hitler was a singular figure, a true Great Man of history. Without him, WWII was not destiny in a way that WWI kinda was from the alliances and ideas of the time.

Without Hitler, perhaps WWII would have been the West vs. the Commies over expansion in Eastern Europe.

What does the Alternate history look like if America stays entirely out of World War I? It's hard for me to imagine things working out worse than they did in our timeline. Is it enough change that WWII doesn't happen, or ends up as the West vs the Commies?

Again, I think there's a strong case to be made that our current position is pretty similar to 1910 or so, for a whole variety of reasons. I think we should try to lean hard into isolationism this time around, not least from observing how WWI and WWII went for the sclerotic, unwieldy empires that rolled into them. Modelling our current choices off WWII history is like a 55-year-old morbidly-obese former athlete with a bad back and a bum knee thinking he can throw down like he did when he was an 18-year-old in peak condition. We should be considering our future more from the perspective of Tsarist Russia or the Austro-Hungarian empire, not from that of a vital, highly cohesive, highly motivated state gifted with secure borders and unlimited, untapped natural resources.

I don't know enough about the particulars of how America's journey into the trenches really made a difference to how the war ended, vs. solely material support. Any change would probably make it so we don't get a Hitler and the particulars of the Nazis, but that's kind of unfair because he was such a strange duck out of nowhere. On the other hand, a militant Germany in general was still possible, just as a baseline. You can imagine some other type of fascism coming to power, but being more focused on the threat of communism than invading Western Europe. I mean just a slightly more sane and less ambitious Hitler could have done some of his opening moves that barely got push back, and then actually have defeated the commies if he so chose. Just leave Poland alone ffs.

The commies in contrast, seem like they were destined to control Russia regardless of any one figure and embark on global revolution.

But I'm not asking that we model off WWII history.

I'm asking that we model off the Cold War and post-Cold War, and that we use our hard and soft power wisely. Occupations and nation building are not wise without a suitable opportunity and a full commitment. Iraq and Afghanistan were not it. Vietnam was not it. Korea could have gone a lot better if we had been smarter about triggering Chinese intervention. Light footprint, use our air power. For instance, it was smart the way we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; we played to our strengths. Reasonable people can disagree how smart it was then not to remove him from power, but it was--leaving aside entirely the failures of the occupation--not great geopolitics in 2003 to remove him at a point he was a minor threat to us and a major threat to Iran. Especially because we had already the Afghanistan shindig going.

Presently, for the second time in ~seven months, we're getting handed to us on a platter a chance to remove a longstanding enemy regime. It's an easy call.

Actually, our present military with it's current technology can perform feats that we only dreamt of in past decades. It's not about scale; it's about precision and speed. Our only actual rival is China, and they have significant problems of their own that at least rival ours. We should play to our strengths and exploit our rivals' weaknesses.

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