site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   33870 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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've said before that I had stopped posting here because it's a purely American Affairs Discussion community and, for a non-American, those affairs are only instrumentally interesting due to their effects elsewhere, and they become less interesting as America recedes from the world stage. The silence on the ongoing global events reinforces my impressions both of the US and of this forum. It's a pity because in terms of the culture war, it's very significant. The Red Tribe basically won politically. Nowhere has this been made more obvious than at the yesterday's session of the World Economic Forum in Davos, that hive of globalists Alex Jones warned us all about. For decades, the narrative around these parts has been that Europe has lost its way, is Communist, is being demographically replaced etc, and only the Serious Big Brother across the Atlantic can steer the ship. Lately there's even talk that Europe is basically «over», and America is what remains of the West, and so the US must take direct stewardship over the imperiled land. For example, one of the justifications for the seizure of Greenland from a MAGA loyalist Scott Greer:

Thanks to the power of anti-colonialist rhetoric over the actions of European leaders and international bodies, China gained a win in the Indian Ocean.
The Chinese could do something similar with Greenland. It’s easy to see an international uproar arising over Denmark’s “colonial” rule over the Greenlanders and the Danes face serious pressure to give up the territory. If the Chinese find a foothold in Greenland, they could manipulate independence to benefit themselves. They can make it harder for Americans to maintain a military presence and gain control over the Northwest Passage. The Danes, even more than the Brits, would be completely helpless to stop this scenario from playing it out.

(Needless to say, every accusation is a confession; very soon, Scott Bessent EXPOSED Denmark's treatment of Greenland in front of millions! – according to some Floridian patriot. This propaganda is gaining steam in conservative sources that belong to the American influence network).

I've seen that the rumors of European death are very much exaggerated. Europe very much still exists. But the sensibility of the United States of America on the world stage is now one of openly admitted exceptionalism and essentialist superiority. We've seen the birth of an assertive Judeo-Christian civilization-state with Latin American characteristics, and it's clearly separate from what can be called «Western Civilization». The focal point of the rupture was of course Greenland again.

I mainly want to get the conversaton going so I'll just share some quotes without commentary.

Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce:

HL: [Long passionate tirade against globalism] When America shines, the world shines. Close your eyes and imagine the world without America in it. It goes dark pretty darn quickly.
the moderator: Can I bring you back to Greenland?
HL: No. It's unnecessary. The Western Hemisphere is vital for the United states of America. Our national security people are on it, and they care about it, and I'll leave it to them to address with our allies, with our friends, and with everyone have it worked out. But the Western Hemisphere matters to the US of A, and the US of A as I've just articulated REALLY REALLY MATTERS to the world. When America shines, the world shines. Because they all need to make sure America is strong and powerful to take care of them, G-d forbid.

This is of course not so much Monroe/Donroe doctrine as invoking Light Unto the nations/Shining city upon a hill with some geopolitical dressing, only cruder, with more stick and less carrot than ever. The reactions are understandable.

Mark Carney, a long-term advisor to Justin Trudeau with all his disastrous policies, was projected to soundly lose the elections to Pierre Poilievre, a very US-style conservative self-identifying as a «simple goy from the prairies». What reversed their odds was Trump's tariff war on Canada plus endorsement of Pierre as his agent to make Canada the 51st state (Poilievre, being a simple goy but not insane, obviously denied any such intention).

Yesterday, Carney delivered a speech that I think ends the North American fraternal relationship and likely the entire post -WWII order. Some excerpts:

It’s a pleasure — and a duty — to be with you at this turning point for Canada and the world.

I’ll speak today about the rupture in the world order, the end of the pleasant fiction and the dawn of a brutal reality in which great-power geopolitics is unconstrained. But I submit to you all the same that other countries, in particular middle powers like Canada, aren’t powerless. They have the power to build a new order that integrates our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states. The power of the less powerful begins with honesty. […] It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim. This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.
We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next. We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength. … We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defence procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months. In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.
[…] Which brings me back to Havel. What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?
It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.

We are taking the sign out of the window. The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Others are saying similar stuff, have been for a while. Merz on the end of the Pax Americana, Macron obviously.

The engagement with China is a common theme, spearheaded by Carney. His partnership with China in particular is prompting Americans to fantasize of seizing Alberta. Maybe that'll happen too.

You really should follow the WEF content on your own to form an opinion though.

The other day @TiltingGambit said:

Cultural export from China is crazily uncharismatic. And this is why, in my view, the US would end up with all the allies in WWIII and china would end up with the dregs of the international community. Nobody likes china, nobody outside of china knows what's going on in china, and nobody in china knows what's going on inside china either.

I am not sure who's going to be American ally in WWIII now. It's my impression that @TiltingGambit has been projecting, because he, as a true American, felt that there is nothing worth learning about affairs of barbarians in China, Europe or anywhere else. This is a very Qing-like attitude. Yes, there's significant consumption of MCU capeshit, we all write in English, Americans are the top content creators on Tiktok, I'm just not seeing how this translates into political loyalty.

So. The costs of winning the Culture War. Any takes on this?

Edit. I explain my focus on this topic, since many are very disappointed.

What are the chances that the Canadians, Europeans, etc., actually do anything to decouple from the Americans? Zilch, I think. They’re all pretending to #resist. After all, that’s what their people demanded, no more, no less. At best, they’re hoping Trumpism will be gone in three years and they can go back to business as usual. Maybe the French actually do have a spine, idk. I guess if this trend outlasts this presidency, then we might see some actual, substantive changes in transatlantic relationships. But nothing that’s happened so far is very reassuring.

Kinda hard to blame them, honestly. What do they have against American might? Sending a platoon to Greenland is pathetic. Cozying up to China won’t help either. The Chinese didn’t care about the Syrians, Venezuelans, Iranians, or random Central American countries we’re allegedly courting. We certainly won’t care about Europe just for Europe’s sake. Then there are the Russians in the picture, and it’s pretty unclear if the Russians or the Europeans are more reliable or competent as partners for China. Unclear what benefit we might get from ditching the Russians.

Judging Europe by the last 80 years is like judging the France by its WWII performance. It's the subcontinent that started and fought in both officially recognized world wars, regularly fought each other in other world-spanning wars throughout the nineteenth and the eighteenth centuries. Oh, and they were world-spanning because in the seventeenth and the sixteenth centuries it colonized the rest of the world, genociding whatever local resistance it encountered.

You think Europeans are too weak to fight their wars, but they are pliable. They have incredible trust in their governments. A year of propaganda and they will be marching in lockstep.

I'm not European so I'm genuinely asking -- is this still true? Will all the migrants also march lockstep to government propaganda? Is there even any possible messaging that could work on both natives and migrants? Will the native populations still march in lockstep when they notice a suspicious lack of Pakistani, Afghan, Turkish or Nigerian faces the conscription office?

The natives likely will, the migrants…might, and will find it hard not to. The government is quite capable of exerting its will on migrants and immigrant communities when it wants to, it’s only that it usually doesn’t want to or thinks it isn't worth it. I think many migrants would leave but I don’t think they’d be able to get out of going to war if they stayed.

The whole thing might collapse after a few years like America in Vietnam as the tensions within the nation come back to the surface. Depends on the exact war.

The government is quite capable of exerting its will on migrants and immigrant communities when it wants to

Any examples?

The UK at least seems much more eager to throw natives in jail over tweets than risk letting the migrants think they're disfavored for more than a few minutes.

The UK

The UK has a different legal tradition to Continental Europe and of course rather notably isn't part of EU. They are in general not representative of the rest of Europe in anything when it comes to laws (anyone using UK as an example of European laws almost certainly has an agenda to grind and isn't participating in good faith).

Here in Finland there was a notable case involving a blog post (written as and literally titled "a bait to the chief prosecutor") which in the end lead to a trivial fine and the author getting voted into the parliament and eventually becoming the leader of the then second largest party in the parliament (because of the resulting large publicity). A rather different outcome from "throwing natives in jail over tweets".

The UK has a different legal tradition to Continental Europe and of course rather notably isn't part of EU

Still beholden, though, to the ECHR, and I'm not sure the degree to which the stuff like "we have to protect rapists because his home country will treat him badly" is homegrown UK idiocy or downstream of ECHR idiocy. That was the other thing I had in mind.

There's also Germany's interesting relationship to speech and democracy, but I hear there's some historic reasons there that don't necessarily apply to the rest of Western Europe.

Ireland is still part of the EU and has had some... issues... but I suppose is closer to the UK's legal tradition than Continental, though occasionally they try to do whatever the opposite of the UK is out of spite.

Here in Finland there was a notable case involving a blog post

I'm not sure the Nordics count very well for generalized European purposes either, given Denmark's... Denmarkness. Then again Sweden is at the opposite end of that spectrum. But I don't think it's bad faith to cite them even so.

To be fair, I was talking about the UK.

No, this is my prediction based on the fact that the government are literally, physically, perfectly capable of applying the same treatment to migrants. They just haven't. There might be pushback, riots etc. but most riots get put down with water cannons eventually. I do not think we lack actual state capacity if we ever decide to us it. The level of migrants in the UK is maybe 10% and if we are talking about conscription then that is a lot of force that can be applied to the task.

...

At best, they’re hoping Trumpism will be gone in three years and they can go back to business as usual.

Pretty safe bet imo, good choice on civilizational time scales.

The fact that there's so little noise about Trump's external political decisions coming from the Blue tribe should be a clear sign to Europeans, Canadians, and others that they can't just weather the storm

Safe bet that trump will be gone. The bet that the next democratic administration will care about what europeans think about them like Obama is anything but safe. Whether MAGA wins or loses - Europe has lost USA respect. And it will show no matter who is in the white house.

Indeed, Newsom has almost gone full Trump on this issue.

Everyone enormously underestimates Europe. In reality American advantage is mostly psychological, just like the European disadvantage. We presume they cannot act rationally, or will only act rationally for a while, unwillingly, to snap back at the first opportunity. I think this centrist-Atlanticist regime was already pretty strained, what with the rise of right-wingers, deportation frenzy in Denmark (hilariously, a far more Aryan and National Socialist nation than the US will ever be, and yet accused by 56 percenters of demographic suicide), general Euroskepticism. If they do not course-correct and accept further open humiliation – and never before has it been more open – the whole political project of the EU just implodes, all the way to dissolution, at least we'll see unironic neonazis polling at >10%, and the center moves to the right.
And if they course-correct, then career trajectories for apparatchiks change robustly. They've already been course-correcting thanks to Russian threat, militarizing (Americans may not understand that they're both paying for the war now and ramping up production), changing attitude.

Trump isn't going anywhere within the next 3 years, most likely. Plenty of time to fix Europe.

What do they have against American might?

Trillions in treasuries and stocks, the largest American export market for high-margin goods (and good luck peddling American garbage to poorer countries who aren't ideologically opposed to China), ASML, Zeiss and a lot of other frontier technological nodes. They are militarily weak but they (well, France) have nuclear deterrence, unlike everyone the US likes to bully. They could reroute supply chains (rein in Ukrainians, accept Russian exports again, more EU-side JVs with China as Macron proposes) and kick the legs out from under the fraudulent American world-system. They are not actually obligated to just take this shit. It's a habit. So if Americans know what's good for them, they should shut Trump up and try to reinforce the habit again.

...

Everyone enormously underestimates Europe.

Importing masses of net-negative people with no interest in assimilation, no interest from above on assimilating or otherwise dealing with them (Denmark excluded, sure), and seemingly no sufficiently strong sense of a cultural mythos willing to accept the tragic mode of politics looks like a fair set of reasons to underestimate Europe. Managed decline and moral signaling was a choice, and so they can make a new choice, but is it too late?

Maybe Macron or some other French leader could step up with an iron fist and pave a new path for Europe and European identity, but it would require a lot more sacrifice and suffering than the average European has any guts for (says the American, of course).

What's the actual path from here to there that isn't just exchanged the US for China as the new boss? How do they regain a cultural attitude that actually justifies the smugness instead of running off century-old fumes?

The last time the Germans unified Europe, the Americans invaded and crushed them.

That's also part of why the Fourth Reich can't do this like the Third did, by the way- the Fourth is mostly just controlled opposition. And the Eurocrats know that, which is why they make efforts to [quite literally] cry about how unfair that is while changing nothing domestically (they're holding out hope for a Blue win in the US so things can go back to normal).

And the problem with European "progress" is just like Canadian progress- it defines itself by opposition to [things that would create competition for elites, but would make the rest of the country prosper], and their people clamor for this approach. So other than going full Nazi again- which is unlikely (migrants are HBD selected for their relative unwilling to fight for principles) there's very little hope for them.

The last time the Germans unified Europe, the Americans invaded and crushed them.

...and there are those that would say that the greatest tragedy of mid-20th century is that we (the West) didn't finish the job. We not only allowed half of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to survive, we allowed them to profit handsomely from their war of conquest, and continue to wage war against us for an additional half-century.

And if they course-correct, then career trajectories for apparatchiks change robustly. They've already been course-correcting thanks to Russian threat, militarizing (Americans may not understand that they're both paying for the war now and ramping up production), changing attitude.

Trump isn't going anywhere within the next 3 years, most likely. Plenty of time to fix Europe.

If things go as well as you say, ironically I think we'd be obligated to build a statue to Trump for waking us the hell up.

I guess I should have given the Europeans more credit. Yes, they are technologically competent, and yes, they do hold trillions of dollars in assets which, if leveraged well, could seriously challenge the Americans. But I don’t have any trust in their will. The EU is as fragmented as ever, headed by incompetent, out-of-touch bureaucrats (I’m thinking of the likes of Kaja Kallas or von der Leyen) who care more about pretending more than anything. There is a serious coordination problem in the EU, and from my limited understanding, there is no obvious solution or resolve to fix it. Maybe the European countries that are not a joke, i.e., France and Germany, plus a few more like the Netherlands (and absolutely excluding the Baltics, if they want to maintain any solidarity. Imagine letting bureaucrats from Ningxia to turn China into an Islamic state), could come together to actually reassert themselves as credible powers alongside the US, China, and (to a lesser extent) Russia. I’m not well-informed enough to see if that’s actually possible, or if anyone is pushing for it.

Also, what percentage of Europeans think of themselves as Europeans or as nationals of their own country first and foremost, as opposed to some flavor of “world citizen”? All my limited interactions with actual Europeans, inside or outside of work (heavily biased, of course; I live in a blue bubble) give off this “Civis Romanum sum” feel, even if they will occasionally say “… in GERMANY”. Do they care about their own country, let alone Europe, more than the “rules-based international order”?

Reply

What is this dumb take on the Baltics? Probably the whitest countries in the block and are actually policy wise one of the harshest on non-white immigration (Estonia caps non-EU immigration at 0.1%, and that is from the same parties that the librul Kallas for example represents). If you are butthurt about foreign policy approach regarding Russia, then it is no different from Poland.

I’m not talking about how white a country is, nor do I care. You can have your nice white ethnostate, good for you (and good for us in an abstract “ethnostates are not intrinsically evil” sense) but I mostly don’t give a shit. I’m also not butthurt about its foreign policy toward Russia. That doesn’t concern me. What I care about is my own country, China (and the US since I have vested interest in it).

What I dislike is a puny, joke of a country playing with fire, pretending to stand up to a big bully, while conveniently hiding behind others.

What I’m really talking about is a major multinational organization being hijacked by narrow special interests. The Baltics have their own axes to grind with Russia, and that’s completely understandable. But appointing their incompetent politicians to run EU diplomacy is just sad.

What is the basis of believing that the multinational organization has been hijacked by narrow special interests? Just because EU has taken a stronger stance against Russia doesn't mean it is the result of Baltic hijacking. I'm not personally biggest fan of Kallas either, but he isn't doing really anything out of lockstep with major EU powers. If there is any conflict, it is probably a convenient conflict (as in organizations it is sometimes good to have a good/bad cop combination).

The EU is fine to take a "stronger" stance against Russian. Russian launched invasion on European land on a massive scale at the expense of their own people and their cultural and genetic siblings (and for some who cares, white people), and it's incredibly sad to see given what these people could have achieved, artistic or scientific. Utter tragedy, like how I would hate to see missiles hitting Taipei. I have my own grievances against the Russians, especially on how they changed the ethnic makeup of Outer Manchuria, and by extension I sympathize with people who want to resist the Russian imposing their brutal approach on other people. But the question is not if the EU should take a stronger stance. It is how strong these stances are, and how effective they are. I don't believe the like of Kallas, who is fanatically against approaching the Russians at any cost, to have the EU best interest in mind.

"“What is it for?” repeated Kallas, who could count on the support of several other Eastern European countries. "

"Kaja Kallas criticises Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and says gas pipeline to Germany should be scrapped"

But also this, which I consider unserious: EU top diplomat: We don’t need a European army. “We need 27 European armies that are capable and can effectively work together to deter our rivals and defend Europe,” says Kaja Kallas.

Are the German concerns wrt energy not legitimate, or not important for the EU when they are one of the major economical driver in the union? The German lost that debate anyways, because of the pressure exerted by said Eastern European Countries. You mentioned Poland that I have not listed in the joke countries list, that's because I don't know Poland, aside from their equally rabid hatred towards the Russians (again, no problem with that given what the Russians did together with the Germans to them, just that they also need to think of the Germans and the French who are likely going to suffer from their hostility towards Russians beyond what their people ask for). I could put them on the list if you want, again I simply don't care as much.

My biggest issue with them is again with how they deal with China. The Chinese did "support" the Russians in the sense that we export more crap in exchange for more of their fuel at better price when they are bleeding dry on a fight with (in my opinion) their own people. The Chinese however did not explicitly support the Russians with drones, weapons, etc. that is beyond what I would consider normal business. Russian drone production capability is a joke, Russian drone supply, a joke, compared to China. If we have indeed supported them with any seriousness but not the usual indifference, the Ukrainians will have much more serious trouble. That doesn't seem to concern people like Kallas, who see any trade with Russian as provocative, and thus we're becoming a collateral damage between her and her archnemesis. Again feel free to do that in the Baltics. But pretending it does not hijack the German or the French interest in the EU is wrong.

They could reroute supply chains (rein in Ukrainians, accept Russian exports again, more EU-side JVs with China as Macron proposes)

Besides any fiscal issues, there's the problem of coordinating "Europeans" to do this. France may want to cool down the Ukraine thing and welcome Russia back but is it what Poland thinks is wise?

but is it what Poland thinks is wise?

Even those among us rabid enough to talk of Russians, literally and casually, as subhuman asiatic menace, see that the window of opportunity for the final solution to the Russian problem is gone.

Our situation deteriorated badly. To be an American client in a war with Russia is to be locked in a doomed meat grinder for years. Patron transactional, disinterested in direct involvement, hungry for bargaining chips; compromised weapons, compromised procurement, empty guarantees that welcome testing. We only really have the professional army and nothing else, we are not like the Fins, and not getting there either.

Also the goal of "keeping Russia outside of the European system", a staple of our strategic thought, such that it is, looks a little retarded and suicidal when it dawns on you what the trajectory of China is.

That we can only rely on regional allies is already common in our discourse. That reintegration of Russia is better than becoming hosts for the European Zone of Armed Hostilities in the eternal struggle between Greater Eastasia and United Atlantic States, I think is an easy case to make. Jokes aside, reintegration is a better shot at long term stability.

If Poland wants to sabotage strategic security of major Western European nations, they can do well without the European market. But I think it's not so hard to satisfy Poles. France should give them security guarantees, and generally expand their influence. Anyway American backing is already non-credible, and Europe is paying for its own defense. Poles will be fine with it, I think. They are not constitutional American slaves, it's always been transactional. The real problem is Baltics and American agents like Kallas.

Russia is also unnecessary in the long run, Canada can satisfy much of the European energy demand and Carney offers this openly.

People assume there will be no political will to implement reforms to resist open subjugation. I recommend you listen to how Trump is talking – if you swallow this, you might as well just apply for being a State. But they don't want that. Policies are already changing, and very rapidly. Merz talks of Russia being a «European country».

France should give Poland security guarantees

Historically that has worked out so well for Poland in deterring invasion. And for France, for that matter.

But I think it's not so hard to satisfy Poles. France should give them security guarantees

American security guarantees =/= French security guarantees, especially since you admit that European hard power is, as it stands, underbuilt. That may change faster than I imagine but it isn't the case now and that colors things.

With Americans, that sort of problem is obviously lessened which is what made their guarantees so credible. You can't necessarily crib from their notes right now

Merz talks of Russia being a «European country».

I mean, he's German. Germans have not, within my lifetime, been the Russophobic country. They're the country Russophobic countries tell not to build pipelines to Russia.

If anything Russia's forays into Ukraine are just interrupting what was a seemingly mutually beneficial relationship.

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