site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13hr ago (text post)   1388 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I want to talk about space travel, once again. NASA's mission back to the moon, Artemis, is slated to launch in less than a week!

Luckily from my perspective, it seems that space travel hasn't been THAT politicized by the culture war, yet. Yes the left and environmentalists hate it, but it hasn't become a hot button, tribal trigger in the way gun control, or abortion, or other major culture war issues are.

Ideally I think space travel will continue to fly under the radar, and slowly get better and better. I know there are some fascinating scientific projects unfolding around space like algae to produce plastic in space, plans for asteroid mining, various organic compounds that can only be created in zero gee, etc. Also of course we now have Space Force, and a renewed space race with China seems to be heating up, potentially.

I'm curious what folks here think about space - are we optimistic that space travel and research will become a genuine market in the next few decades? What are the political fault lines people seeing potentially being an issue here?

Oh boy. I'm glad this is in Culture War and not in Friday Fun, because Artemis isn't very fun at all. I'm sure there's a culture war angle here somewhere, though.

NASA's mission back to the moon, Artemis, is slated to launch in less than a week!

No, it's not. Because Artemis can't fucking reach the moon. NASA made Orion to heavy and/or SLS not powerful enough to get there. It simply doesn't have the delta v for a moon mission. And they did that knowingly, from the beginning. And they paid more than a $100B for the privilege. Let me say that again: NASA spent 20 years and significantly more than $100B of American tax payer money to use 2010 technology to build a rocket and a capsule a whole lot less capable than Apollo 8 was 50 years ago.

Really, it is hard to understate how bad the Artemis program was (and is) managed. At this point, it's not a program to return to the moon, it's a program to ram several billion dollars down the throat of Lockheed, Boenig, et al. in exchange for a welfare jobs program in strategically chosen congressional districts. It's much more pork barrel than rocket.

The best summary of the sad situation is The Lunacy of Artemis, and Casey Handmer has several nicely detailed raints on why the Orion Space Capsule Is Flaming Garbage, why cancellation is too good for SLSand why SLS is still a national disgrace.

The TL;DR (but really, you should read at least the first one if you care about the Moon mission) is: the rocket can only lift 27 tons to the moon (compared to Apollo's 49 tons). That's not enough for a moon mission, especially not if you make the new capsule so heavy. This is mostly because NASA has to reuse old Space Shuttle parts, e.g. the engines on the rocket. They pay $40M to take old engines out of storage and refurbish each (reusable) engine, and then dump it into the ocean during the first flight anyway. $40M is both more than an entire SpaceX booster and also more than those old engines cost to make in the first place. The capsule is a six seater designed for Mars. It now goes towards the moon with four astronauts. It is extremely heavy, a bad combination if you have to work with an underpowered rocket. This means NASA's plan had to change quite a bit. They can't make it to the moon, they can't even make it to a useful orbit around the moon (like Apollo 8), no, they have to make due with a more... 'lunar-adjacent' destination. It's called a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit, is really slow (and thus dangerous for manned missions since you can't really abort it if something goes wrong, you have to ride it out - for up to 11 days) and really not all that interesting since it's rather far away from the moon most of the time. NASA will fix all those problems by refueling the rocket in space, something that will indubitably cost another $100B. Oh, and although they always wanted to do that, they forgot that the capsule doesn't have a docking hatch. Changing the design to include that has cost billions and billions of dollars, again. Also, the last time they tried to fly the capsule, they had catastrophic trouble with both the heat shield (of Columbia fame) and the batteries. They haven't tested both of those since, but are going to fly it with human guinea pigs next.

In the end, I'm mostly sad and angry because this clusterfuck has cost us the Mars sample return mission.

Now, for the culture war angle. I'm relatively far left-leaning. Universal healthcare appeals to me. But this entire story black-pilled me on universal health care in the US. There's just no way that a system that allows this much mismanagement in favor of Lockheed and Boenig would manage to drop healthcare costs when facing the healthcare lobby.

Luckily from my perspective, it seems that space travel hasn't been THAT politicized by the culture war, yet.

You're talking about a mission specifically designed to put a woman on the moon. Although it seems they only have one woman on the 4-person crew, as well as a black man.

No worries, the two white dudes are practically Buzz Lightyear from central casting! And they only have to get the woman in proximity of the moon AIUI; piece of cake.

I've never heard a leftist snarl about space IRL, and trust me, it a leftist snarls about something, I hear it.

You may be too young. Around the time after the moon landings, there were protests of the kind "could not this ointment be sold and the money given to the poor?" about it. Space exploration was not seen to be doing anything, sure we'd been to the moon but so what? just sending up more landings was doing nothing, meanwhile we have all these problems on earth of poverty etc. and isn't it better if the budget devoted to useless rocket launches, coming out of taxpayer money, is instead spent on the sick, poor and homeless here in our own countries?

I'd be more optimistic about the New Space Age were it not for having lived through the Old Space Age. We do not have the moon bases and so forth that were the golden dreams post-moon landing. I don't see any reason for it to be different this time round, except that private commercial operators are now up and running. Asteroid belt mining will remain the province of SF.

EDIT: I am extremely bummed out about the space shuttle, for instance. This was meant to be the future, yet it seems to have fizzled out in "too expensive, not really doing what it was supposed to do, back to old fashioned heavy rocket lifts".

I can count one of my ratchet clicks away from leftism when I first heard the performance of the poem "Whitey on the Moon."

From 1970, complaining about the moon landing whilst poverty exists.

Just an insane level of scope blindness. "How dare you move the course of human history and the frontiers of exploration forward while I have to pay more for food.

Which ignores that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but also represents the kind of envious Luddism that threatens to keep us confined to this rock forever.

(And no, this isn't a feature that is limited to the left).

There's a limit somewhere, though. Do Moon landings benefit humans? Obviously, as a step toward extraction and colonization. Do Saturn probes benefit humans? Maybe, if I squint. Do deep-space telescopes benefit humans? I personally don't see how.

My general response to that is "the market would sort it out" under normal conditions.

We just can't let the existence of human suffering, somewhere, be an excuse to shut down human advancement everywhere.

If we are productive enough to have excess resources lying around after we feed, house, clothe, and entertain ourselves, some of it can probably get thrown at speculative science projects or pure pursuit of knowledge sans profit motive.

Is there demand for it? Probably not that much... but the people that would demand it also happen to be pretty rich.

Some of that also comes down to how you answer the Fermi paradox. If there's a small but nonzero chance of happening across other intelligent life (or the remnants of same) that's a potentially massive payoff, so buying a few lotto tickets 'makes sense' if survival isn't compromised (lol Dark Forest Theory).

Deep Space Telescopes in particular seem to be relatively cheap to deploy and have a small but real chance of discovering something really, really cool... even if not immediately valuable.

If we were moving rapidly towards space industrialization, they'd also be useful for finding ripe targets for Von Neumann Probes.

We just can't let the existence of human suffering, somewhere, be an excuse to shut down human advancement everywhere.

If we allowed the human advancement for advancement's sake, then our enemies would gain political power.

In an environment where the socioeconomic power for the average member outside the current dominant bloc has done nothing but shrink, a society governed by that bloc is going to be fiercely resistant to change.

This is the root cause of why China (and a few other countries that have high human capital potential) can build and advance; while everywhere else [allows itself to be] buried under heckler's veto without end.

If we allowed the human advancement for advancement's sake, then our enemies would gain political power.

Ironically, one of the better reasons to get space-based industry going is to try and outrun these Molochian incentives for a while.

My dream is to have a nice little O'Neill Cylinder of my own, tucked inside a nondescript asteroid, powered by fusion, so that I can genuinely just live life in peace, such that there's no major incentive to try and exercise political authority over me and mine.

Unless we think that the drive of the collectivists will not permit them to leave someone alone who could be forced to come into the fold. At which point I'd rather fight them to the death before we get off-planet.

The crew is diverse. The backup crew is equally diverse. That increases the chances of NASA pulling off a Challenger substantially in my book. The organizations that care about diversity seems to underperform in execution of their core mission.

Yes the left and environmentalists hate it

Why? For me peaceful space exploration is the least controversial thing - the resources it consumes are negligible, no pollution, huge moral lifter.

We need to explore space. We need to do more stuff in space. And the scientific bang for buck is extraordinary.

There are enough women, Canadians, and blacks that they can find someone competent, and all of them want to be astronauts. Diversity in itself doesn’t mean much.

There are enough women, Canadians, and blacks that they can find someone competent

You would think so, but my experience going to an elite university says otherwise, at least as to blacks.

As far as women go, the issue I see is that the pool of women who are seriously interested in becoming astronauts is surely far far smaller than the pool of men. So while the (non-minority) female professors I had in college were basically competent, I'm not sure that it would be the same way with astronauts.

I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago where a female astronaut was arrested over an apparent kidnapping plan she had hatched over a love triangle. Yes, this is an n=1 situation, but still. The pool of wannabe male astronauts is large enough that anyone with the slightest hint of this kind of psychological issue can be eliminated.

I don’t think there should be women astronauts. But I don’t think minorities, women, and Canadians on the ship will cause it to blow up mid flight, either.

But I don’t think minorities, women, and Canadians on the ship will cause it to blow up mid flight, either.

I would agree it's unlikely however it certainly raises the odds of a calamity. The other issue is that every DEI hire paves the way to more and more DEI hires, which can be expected to result in disasters which would not have otherwise happened. Separately, in order to meet DEI quotas, organizations tend to de-emphasize objective measures of competency. Which means that everyone is worse, on average, even white men.

I once encountered a grizzled mariner who assured me that women aboard a ship are still bad luck, even in current year.

Challenger astronauts were also competent.

Deliberate diversity is organizational rot. Can you think of examples of organizations that become better after dei push?

Ok, do you think the quality control inspectors on the Artemis program are DEI hires? I suspect not.

Even if they are not - organizational culture matters a great deal for outcomes. Does it matter if the pressure for you to greenlight something comes because your boss has overly optimistic schedule or because you are afraid she will call you anti black racist?

Nasa has a history of cultural drift leading to disasters. And the track record of embracing DEI is spotty at best.

Do you think that there is no way those two could interact in such a way that to lead to a failed mission?

I have no opinion on the quality control inspectors on the Artemis program in particular, but I would note that we have seen strong DEI pushes that trade off directly against high-stakes safety institutions like air traffic controllers and pilot training, along with pretty much every field in the whole country. This is not something I'd be super confident in asserting obviously wouldn't happen, especially given the degree to which space programs are very clearly run off politics rather than engineering.

Challenger had nothing to do with DEI and everything to do with a demented and unholy mix of refusing to listen to Engineers, Victory Disease, and the Space Shuttle being an deformed Rube Goldberg machine to get into orbit.

Funny thing is, had they stripped the Orbiter out of the equation, you'd have a disposable heavy-lift vehicle capable of getting 90 tons into orbit.

Retrospective perspective is a bitch. We should have just continued making Saturn V rockets.

Challenger happened due to cultural rot. For me DEI has also a smell of cultural rot.

Yeah, but they rarely pick those people. The whole point of DEI is to destroy the concept of merit. You can't go picking meritorious minorities, you have to purposely pick the least qualified ones you can possibly get away with. Because the entire thing is a social experiment at scale to prove merit isn't real.

The crew is diverse.

"We're sending the first woman, first person of color, and, uh, first Canadian around the moon."

Although I think a decent chunk of the Artemis program success has been a lack of prominent news coverage. The last few decades of space exploration have largely been dictated by political decisions regularly yanking the chain of the current project in whatever shiny direction appeals to the elected officials "Moon! No, Mars! No, Moon! Shuttle-derived Constellation! No, SLS!". It seemed we'd change things up every time the party in office changed over. If anything. It seems we're here because Artemis might be the only Trump first-term agenda item that Biden didn't summarily cancel (uncertain if due to agreement on direction, or just lack of concern about NASA budget). They "let them cook", as the kids would say.

Which isn't to say that concerns about cost effectiveness are wrong, per se. SLS is hilariously expensive (and I'm sure Orion is too), but the SpaceX fanboys originally advertised Starship HLS on the Moon in 2024, and we haven't even seen the base variant make orbit yet, much less hit the advertised payload numbers (and there aren't public numbers on Starship dev costs). Dino space is at least mostly competent at building things that don't go boom unexpectedly too often: SLS worked on its first launch, as did Vulcan and even New Glenn.

Whitey on the Moon remains a banger even as somebody who thinks the concept is ludicrous. What more needs to be said?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

Don't forget the spiritual successor.

Or the country version.

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