site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10675 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but why do it in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres

Look, even as someone skeptical of Israel's influence on American politics, the Iranian government is NOT some innocent widdle victim in this little drama.

And its worth mentioning that our relationship with the current government of Iran STARTED by them taking a bunch of our diplomats hostage for over a year.

As far as I know Israel was not involved in that.

This is not a state that we could happily co-exist with. Even Kim Jong Un was willing to shake Trump's hand, at least. The stick was the only way this was ever going to go with the Ayatollah, in my estimation.

In this particular matter, U.S. and Israeli motives and goals are in very close alignment. And the Israelis are clearly putting some skin in the game. Its their cities that are getting bombarded, I've seen videos of that I'm pretty sure aren't AI.

If the ultimate position represented here is "I want to see Israel get its shit pushed in even if that means Iran gets a nuke and consolidates its grip in the region" then fine, just say that.

If you think Israel is capable of kneecapping Iran unilaterally, then I'm not sure why U.S. intervention would piss you off... provided little American blood or treasure is spilt in the process.

Or if your position is that Israel would happily false flag an Iranian attack on U.S. troops to get the U.S. involved, then SAY THAT. I just want the logic explained so I can assess.

That's what I'm saying. If Iran wouldn't retaliate against U.S. assets, but Israel will happily fire on our boys whilst claiming it was Iranian missiles, THAT is a stronger argument.

Iran_massacres

US grand strategy politics are NEVER based on massacres or other heart warming considerations. It sat idly by as the UAE and Israel bombed the ever living shit out of military and civilian targets alike in Yemen. You will also notice the complete lack of action counter the various ethnic pogroms occurring in Africa on the daily.

Consider that these protestors were acting specifically in resistance to the current regime, though.

Practically, this makes them a much more useful tool.

Morally, well, its usually better to lend support to people who are actually asking for it and, in turn, have some capacity to act on their own once you give them that support.

Likewise with Venezuela, we have a friendly party to throw in with.

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