site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   33905 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.

The only way out is through, as they say. I think Carney and co. are likely correct as a factual matter. As the United States becomes a less reliable partner countries are going to look at diversifying away from their dependence on it. Whether that is part of a process of becoming more self sufficient, making friends with other great powers, or coalitions of "middle powers" countries are going to aim to reduce their reliance on America as a friend and ally. A couple paragraphs from Carney's speech you didn't quote but that I think highlight this:

As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable. And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure. This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

I, personally, think America's close integration with our allies operated to our benefit. Both economically and in terms of our ability to order the world more to our liking. A more isolationist America is going to be poorer and facing a more hostile world. Even in the event Democrats take back control of Congress and the presidency over the next several elections I expect the damage done by Trump would be generations in undoing. Other countries are not going to forget it takes one demented madman winning an election to blow up any agreements we might have.

making friends with other great powers

Who are the other great powers, though? Russia? China? the EU? Who do the EU make friends with?

China is the obvious one but, like, the EU is itself about the size of the US. A GDP almost as high and 50% more people. Sure, no individual country in Europe is a match for the US but collectively may be a different story.

The OP doesn't quote the section but there's a part in Carney's speech where he talks about middle powers like Canada making alliances on limited issues based on interest alignment. They'll work with China on issues where they're aligned with China. The EU on issues where they're aligned with the EU. The overarching point is that the era of "whatever the US says, goes" is over. Unless we intend to enforce that at the end of a gun.

“Less reliable partner”

Argentinians voted the right way and then they got unlimited dollar swaps basically. America had regime change. If your politics still back the old regime then you are not in the new system. If Canada elected the conservative then they would get better terms. It’s normal politics. Friends rewarded.

It is not normal politics. It is bad for America's long term ability to negotiate agreements if other countries come to believe that every President is going to tear up every agreement of their predecessor. Why make any deal that will last longer than the current administration? The reason other presidents have honored agreements previous presidents made, even when they disagreed with them, is because there is value in being a country that honors it's agreements.

Regime not administration. Bush and Clintons were both neoliberals who had different views on tax rates. Regimes rarely change.

The thing about being a vassal state is you are a vassal state and need to do what your master tells you to do. Otherwise you are not a useful vassal.

I do not think either we or our allies have conceived of our relationship as vassalage and attempts at converting our relationship to vassalage will be harmful to those relationships.

Are you joking or you actually believe this?

I feel like this is one of those things we dress up in nice words “you are not a vassal” and avoiding saying the quiet part out loud, but everyone knows the real truth - you are a vassal.

Sometimes I feel like leftists forgot the real truth and start to think the lie we tell ourselves is the real truth to disastrous consequences.

No, they should just never elect commies in the first place. That will do better for them regardless of who the American president is.

Argentine governance has been very very bad historically, although ‘communist’ is probably not a good word.

Notably the Western European leaders actively picked a side in the internal American political contest. You can’t do that and then be shocked when your opponent disrespects you.

Generally trying to censor social media largely but not exclusively thru NGO. There was the time Theirry (sp?) threatened Elon for interviewing Trump on X while Trump was running for president.

...

Specifically? Christopher Steele was MI6 though a few year out of official titles when he created his Russia Hoax dossier.

Really hope the US doesn’t have people in the CIA who will going rogue the second they lose official titles and work against our interests.

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