site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   8697 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because all the PREVIOUS US interventions in the Middle East in general and Iran in particular have gone SO well.

You can argue we didn't intervene enough.

How much better off would the world be if Jimmy Carter hadn't been a leftist simp and he'd gone all in on keeping the Shah in power in 1979, instead of the Islamists and commies?

We should have done Operation Ajax 2.0 if anything.

I don't think rented mobs and planted newspaper articles would have prevented the Islamic Revolution. People seem to forget that the Shah still controlled the police and military in 1953, and the issue was that he didn't feel like he had the popular support to use them to take out Mossadeh. In 1979 he was deposed despite having that power tenfold and not being afraid to use it. Propaganda making the Ayatollah look bad wasn't going to stop that tidal wave.

He was actually afraid to use it.

The West told him to treat the opposition with kid gloves and facilitated Khomeini's return.

A mistake the current regime will not make.

Which is why we should bomb 'em I say.

Make it more of a fair fight.

Kuwait was a great success, in that the US achieved all its stated goals and Kuwait is today a rich, stable, pro-American state that acts as a crucial hub for US military operations in the Middle East. But Kuwait is also much easier to invade than Iran is.

You mean when we restored the House of al-Sabah, just deposed by Iraq? Sure, that worked out OK, but it was a much different sort of intervention, and part of a larger one which didn't go so well.

Look, I understand that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were glorious boondoggles. But Iran is not just a American enemy (or heck, an Israeli one.) It's an incompetent regime. One that has run out of money and electricity and water. You can't shoot your way out of a drought. One way or another, Iran is going to explode. The calculus has shifted - not because of the CIA or Mossad, but because of nature. Regime change will happen regardless of what Americans do or do not do, so getting ahead of the curve and allying ourselves with the Iranians who have already endured and sacrificed so much is smart.

The Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Assad were not so short-sighted and stupid enough to run out of water. The mullahs of Iran and the IRGC are so incompetent they grow rice in the desert from water captured from dams they themselves built because they are stupid. They ignored the advice of their own scientists because of greed and that is why they are falling now - systematic incompetence on every level. Intervening now will save the world an Iranian refugee crisis down the line, far larger than the Syrian one.

Look, I understand that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were glorious boondoggles.

Iraq actually went rather well by these standards. And it's still shit.

It's an incompetent regime.

The Soviets were incompetent for 70 years. I mean, to the point of holding all of Ukraine and STILL not being able to feed themselves. Still took a leader not willing to massacre his way out to allow it to fall. The Iranian regime is still willing to massacre its way out.

Iraq's pretty fine.

Unless the Shia clerics can drink blood and summon rain, you can't kill your way out of having no water. The Islamic Republic has foolishly pushed themselves into a position where no amount of force will overcome its problems. It reminds me of Xerxes whipping the ocean for its insolence. One hundred million people living in a mountainous desert can't be denied water. Even the Soviets - hell, even the North Koreans and the Khmer Rouge - did not run out of water.

I can't overstate enough how incompetent you have to be to overlook this very obvious problem, of their own making. If the Iranian opposition starts getting denied water, they have literally nothing to lose but their lives - which their evil government is determined to do by dehydration and starvation. Just to make sure... you do know that humans require water to live, right?

The humanitarian catastrophe is already priced in: intervention is the difference between a impoverished but recovering democracy and an atrocity on par with the Great Leap Forward.

Even the Soviets did not run out of water.

The Aral Sea begs to differ.

Unless the Shia clerics can drink blood and summon rain, you can't kill your way out of having no water.

They don't have literally zero water. And killing indeed reduces demand, though it's unlikely they'll kill enough to make a dent.

If the Iranian opposition starts getting denied water, they have literally nothing to lose but their lives - which their evil government is determined to do by dehydration and starvation.

So the government simply reserves what water it has for its security forces, and the dehydrated and starving people are easier to kill.

The humanitarian catastrophe is already priced in: intervention is the difference between a impoverished but recovering democracy and an atrocity on par with the Great Leap Forward.

Note that the regime which did the Great Leap Forward is still in power.

Unless the Shia clerics can drink blood and summon rain, you can't kill your way out of having no water.

North Korea has survived famines without a regime change, and they can't drink blood and summon rain.

A famine isn't a drought. People can go without food for a month, very uncomfortably. People without water for a month are dead.

Iraq actually went rather well by these standards. And it's still shit.

Iraq is doing about as well as a non-GCC Arab country can do for now. Judged against its peers, it’s got good growth, a functioning economy with real median income having increased a lot in the last decade, and as a basket case of ethnic tensions between Sunni Arabs, Shias and Kurds it’s being vaguely held together with comparatively minimal violence.

In general though I agree with your point.

so getting ahead of the curve and allying ourselves with the Iranians who have already endured and sacrificed so much is smart.

I am very seriously concerned that overtly intervening will cause the protest movement to lose face and legitimacy. Merely offering verbal support to a revolutionary movement and or even arming it generates less risk of creating an appearance that it is merely an American puppet regime than airstrikes or a ground intervention. Now admittedly this is a position I hold from ignorance, but we have reliable evidence such as outside polling showing that e.g. a majority of Iranians support US airstrikes against the regime, then I have not heard of it.

The fact that they are calling for a return of the Shah with a straight face is a pretty big sign that they already have no legitimacy.

How many Iranians are old enough to actually remember life under the Shah? It's all Boomer fairytales to those young enough to fight, like the 50's suburbs are to American NEETs.

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