site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23858 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.

One of the greatest shows of military might ever in history was done to North Korea over the course of three whole years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea#:~:text=A%20total%20of%20635%2C000%20tons,(including%20160%2C000%20on%20Japan)

Air Force estimates of the destruction of towns and cities in North Korea ranged from 40 to 90%, with 18 out of North Korea’s 22 major cities being at least 50% destroyed.[2] The U.S. dropped approximately 635,000 tons of bombs and 32,557 tons of napalm during the war, mostly on North Korea (compared to 503,000 tons in the entire Pacific theater in World War II).[3] In other words, the United States dropped more bombs on North Korea during the Korean War than it had dropped on the entire Pacific theater during the Second World War.[4]

Incredibly destructive (some estimates go as high as 20% of the population in NK dead from it) and yet as we all know now, it didn't really matter, the communists are still around and they even have nukes now. Military might is an incredibly important thing to have, but even such insanely overwhelming numbers do not make a simple fix to our problems. There must be more to it, and we've already failed at this in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan. Heck even in Iraq itself just a few years ago. Maybe it succeeds this time without a hitch, but it can't be taken for granted.

Sure, that's the conventional wisdom. I've heard that sort of thing all my life, that Korea, Vietnam, etc. prove the limits of what strategic bombing can accomplishment. But I'm not so sure that's a universal truth, or simply a limit of 20th century technology. It's sort of like how electric cars were always slow and useless, until suddenly they weren't. Previous wars involved bombing wildly and indescriminately, with the US first being unable to hit its targets (most of the 20th century) and then struggling to identify just who it should be targeting (most of the war on terror). It no longer has that limitation- It knew exactly where all the key leaders of Iran were, and targetted them very precisely in the first day of the war. It can continue to do this as long as anyone in Iran tries to resist. But so far there hasn't been any organized resistance, and the Iranian people seem pretty happy that their dictator is gone.

The US carved out a state in Korea despite the endless onslaught of millions of Chinese bodies in a zerg rush and the risk that the Soviets would send millions more. That’s very impressive. There was no need at the time to fight further and harder to get a few more map inches up the Korean Peninsula, which was broadly seen as just another offshoot of communist China.

Modern birthrates might make it a bit more effective when replenishment takes significantly longer

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