site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17094 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

Why do so alphabetically and not attempt a good faith ranking of foreign influence? Surely whomever has more control, and specifically more control over military policy, is of greater concern to the American Nationalist?

I think if one looks seriously it's going to be shaped more like intelligence and influence networks than along any national lines, but why refuse to look?

I'm happy to stipulate that the Israelis and a distinct population of western jews both punch above their weight class in terms of media and political lobbying. But it's a big world, and there's a lot of weight classes. The motte is that jews are disproportionately influential. The bailey is that they outweigh realpolitik involving actual heavyweights like China.

There's also significant disagreement even among Israelis about policy, and obviously between western jews and Israelis, so the effects of their influence and lobbying is a bit muddled.

Why do so alphabetically and not attempt a good faith ranking of foreign influence?

To better hide the Zimbabwean puppetmasters, of course!

Good lord! Their devious perfidy goes back all the way to moving "Zeta" from the 6th position of the Greek alphabet to the last of the Latin! Now THAT'S true control of the media!!

A good faith ranking at least conceivably puts the Anglosphere on top ("Murdoch was a long con by the Queen" is probably a bit far, though), followed by the rest of NATO. The French have gotten us into multiple wars (Vietnam, Libya, arguably other conflicts in Africa and the Middle East) with higher casualty counts than Israel even if you accept conspiracy theories. At the time, both World Wars had relatively strong isolationist movements who would argue our involvement there was similarly "serving foreign interests".

And I'd give honorable mention to Japan and Korea, which punch well above their weight culturally and (arguably) the US keeps getting yanked along to serve their "contain China" interests, even if many argue it's also in American interests. In fact, that's probably how most of these examples work anyway: convincing people that "$country interests are American interests".

Last I checked France and Britain hadn't received a hundred billion in direct aid, nor did the US expend a fifth of the global missile interceptor supply on their behalf. Any intervention on their behalf involved the (theoretical) prospect of American benefit and when it didn't America was just as happy to crush them as in the Suez Canal Crisis.

and before you ask, Lend Lease was just 33 billion and that was, as the name implies, a loan.

AFAIK the US didn't provide direct financial aid to the French in Vietnam or Libya (although it did provide aid to South Vietnam), but did get dragged into a French-started conflict in ways that involved active service members, which is in many ways worse than merely providing materiel.

If direct aid is your metric, Ukraine seems quite relevant: they've gotten hundreds of billions in materiel aid, including no small number of ABM interceptors.

And one of the men who killed Kennedy is rumored to have a been a French solider and OAS member.

Oswald? Or one of the grassy knoll guys?

Grassy knoll (or the Dallas Textiles building)

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