site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7331 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Top Administration Officials Are Now Openly Admitting That America Is Israel's Bitch.

Rubio: "The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."

This wasn't clipped and quoted from a fringe groyper. This was posted by an official White House account.

I can't believe this shit. The United States has abdicated strategic initiative to Israel. The American armed forces in the Middle East have been reduced to reacting to and mitigating damage from Israel's operations in the theater. The straightforward interpretation of the above quote is that Israel started a war that killed American troops.

I was watching Tucker Carlson lay out this exact theory and thought, “well that’s an interesting idea. Too bad we’ll never know for sure.” And then the first thing I see when I tab over to Twitter is Marco Rubio making the exact same thought.

If Iran attacks the US in response to an attack by Israel, whose fault is it?

When Israel has the capability to acheive its objectives and has already planned a strike, does butting in to get a piece of the glory make the US Israel's bitch?

Or does it somehow look better to just sit around twiddling your thumbs while Israel takes care of it, all the while taking some collateral because Iran thinks it's a good idea to bomb literally every country in the region?

If Iran attacks the US in response to an attack by Israel, whose fault is it?

It's pretty silly to mass mobilize the military on the border of Iran and then claim a threat of retaliation from an Israeli strike as justification for a "defensive" preemptive strike. If the US didn't build its forces it wouldn't have needed to worry. Iran didn't strike US in 12-day war except as symbolic retaliation for Fordow.

Interesting account from the NYT today about Rubio not disclosing the consideration of a regime-change operation:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war.

For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.

Over nearly three hours, the two leaders discussed the prospects of war and even possible dates for an attack, as well as the possibility — however unlikely — that President Trump might be able to reach a deal with Iran.

Days later, the U.S. president made clear publicly that he was skeptical of the diplomatic route, dismissing the history of negotiating with Iran as merely years of “talking and talking and talking.”

...

But on Feb. 24, hours before Mr. Trump’s annual State of the Union address, congressional leaders from the so-called Gang of Eight gathered in a secure conference room in the Capitol to speak on video teleconference with Mr. Rubio and Mr. Ratcliffe. The two officials were just down Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House, but security arrangements for the president’s speech made the two-mile trip onerous.

Mr. Rubio and Mr. Ratcliffe talked about the intelligence behind the strikes, the possible timing and the potential “offramp”— if the Iranians were to give up nuclear enrichment at upcoming talks.

And yet Mr. Rubio never mentioned that the administration was considering a regime-change operation.

In the briefing, Mr. Rubio argued that, no matter if Israel or the United States struck first, Iran would respond with a powerful barrage of weapons against U.S. bases and embassies. It was logical then, Mr. Rubio said, that the United States should act in concert with Israel, since America would be dragged in anyway. And Israel, Mr. Rubio said, was determined to act.

This logic sat poorly with some Democrats, who thought the Trump administration was letting Mr. Netanyahu dictate American policy — and was making a circular argument that the United States had to attack because its military buildup could prompt Iran to strike.

So Netanyahu walks into the oval office, Trump mobilizes a good portion of our military to defend Israel, then we attack Iran on the logic that Iran would attack user after Israel's attack.

The real question is what did Netanyahu tell Trump in his many visits to the Oval Office.

I would dispute whether it is inherently glorious to bomb shit and topple governments. I suppose it is cool, but not even I am callous enough to consider that a full justification.

I guess it comes down to what America is supposed to be getting out of the alliance with Israel. I can see the appeal of having a Westernized client state in the Middle East to hold down the fort, but typically one expects foreign policy optionally to be held almost exclusively by the suzerain.

If Israel can decide where and when to start major regional wars then I don’t see what the United States is getting out of this.

I would dispute whether it is inherently glorious to bomb shit and topple governments.

It is inherently glorious to bomb shit and topple the government whose official slogan is "Death to America", who started its existence with taking 66 Americans as hostages, and which had murdered over a thousand of US citizens since, and is operating the largest and strongest terrorist network on the planet. Oh and which also has a very strong ballistic missile and drone programs (strong enough that Russia is basically has them as their major supplier for their war) and are within arms reach of getting the nukes, after which the opportunity for bombing shit is gone because nobody would dare to bomb a country that is capable of nuclear response.

I don’t see what the United States is getting out of this.

Rubio literally told you. "if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties." If US did not use the opportunity to go together with Israel, but instead did their own thing, at different time, more US people would die as the result. With Israel - less American deaths. Without Israel - more American death. How do I explain it in more simple terms? Do you understand "less casualties" is better than "higher casualties"?

Well if we’re going back to the 70s, you know which country killed a lot of Americans? Vietnam. We have the technology to find the current addresses of 80-year-old war veterans in Hanoi with American blood on their hands.

Obviously it would be completely deranged to go back and bomb them now 50 years after the fact.

Yes, because Vietnam did not maintain and escalate the level of hostilities since then. They are not building nukes and do not commonly chant "Death to America" in their official meetings. In fact, they have been working for the last three decades on consistently normalizing and improving the relationships. And that's why nobody wants to bomb them - because the war is done there. The war with Iran isn't.

who started its existence with taking 66 Americans as hostages

Yeah, I think not enough people take this into account. Trump is old (so he remembers this personally), patriotic, and holds a grudge.

I guess it comes down to what America is supposed to be getting out of the alliance with Israel. I can see the appeal of having a Westernized client state in the Middle East to hold down the fort, but typically one expects foreign policy optionally to be held almost exclusively by the suzerain.

For decades its mostly served as a distraction and resource sink for the local crazies who want to conquer the world in the name of Muhammad and Allah. Recently its also been a leverage point that gave some people in the region the option of not being crazy in exchange for peace, and that seems to have worked decently for SA and the rest.

The option of getting out of the Israel business means you need some other proxies in the region, and there aren't good options, and there are obviously bad ones, like Iran, who only galaxy brain guys like Ben Rhodes think are a good option.

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