site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19338 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Depends how you define the term 'warrior'.

Wikipedia: 'A warrior is a guardian specializing in combat or warfare, especially within the context of a tribal or clan-based warrior culture society that recognizes a separate warrior aristocracy, class, or caste.'

Okay, fine. When you think of the term 'warrior', one figure that comes to mind is the Samurai; landed lords, skilled in warfare, but also educated in politics as well as more intellectual pursuits. Knights, in the European tradition, were likely similar.

(And, yes, I'm sure there's people more educated in this that could correct me. I'm not going for historical accuracy; I'm going for modern perception.)

So when people say they want a Warrior when it comes to killing, they're saying they want their killers smart, intelligent, with a broad depth of education and eclectic skill.

To use a more immediate, modern example, Mike Vining comes across as pretty smart cookie, and if you called him a warrior, I doubt many would argue.

Okay, fine. When you think of the term 'warrior', one figure that comes to mind is the Samurai; landed lords, skilled in warfare, but also educated in politics as well as more intellectual pursuits. Knights, in the European tradition, were likely similar.

The issue is that a modal modern soldier is a bit more like a squire, or a wakashu/kosho in the Samurai tradition, than a person of eclectic skill. The most important thing for many is that they keep their equipment in running order, follow SOPs diligently and keep accurate records.

Of course, you have fighter pilots and SOF that exercise the kind of unstructured problem solving your referencing. But even that makes the point -- we need 25 aircraft squires support crew for each plane. And for them, it's more about being a virtuous mechanic than being a warrior.

Maybe one way to square the circle is that the goal of the organization and the virtues that make it possible are not always the same. The tip of the spear accomplishes the goal, but the determinants of success are in creating, fielding, maintaining and supplying it.

Well, yes.

But there's an arguement to be made that even the common grunt wants to be a Warrior, despite not being one. It's an aspirational goal.

A minor example thereof, from what I've heard, is that the special forces operationg during the GWOT had relaxed grooming standards to better fit in with the locals(long beards and whatnot). And the common grunts bitched about it cause they wanted to look like the high speed low drag guys, and people in charge gradually relented.

So, yeah. You're going to have the bulk of your army/military be common grunts. But that doesn't mean they don't want to be a Warrior as opposed to said grunt.

Aspirationally sure.

But even then, maybe they valorize the warrior types, the determinant of the overall mission success is their ethos as soldiers.

I guess i don’t object to the claim about what they want, i object to the implication it has on what makes a successful/lethal military.

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