site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19856 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I feel like he had a brief chance to become someone really significant, adding his followers to the general Republican coalition. He would never be able to control the Republican party, but they would have listened to him. Instead, he threw it all away for some sort of purity test, like many extremists do. He'll have no influence at all, and it's not even clear what he wants. He reminds me of Jon Stewart- very funny as a comedian, but not much of a serious thinker.

I also think he relied on 4chan /pol/ memes to do a lot of the lifting for him in generating ideas, but 4chan is kinda dead these days, which killed his best source of material.

I feel like his last real chance at significance died with Charlie Kirk; there was nothing he really could have done to salvage being the main known in-house rival to a central martyr figure like that. Leftist conspiracy theories that the assassin was affiliated with Fuentes were obviously baseless nonsense, but before info came out it at least felt vaguely plausible (though certainly not the null hypothesis).

Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?

What is the limit? How low can the republicans sink while the base stays loyal? Americans should do what the British are doing by abandoning the torries en mass

Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?

Its possible this will be the proper take at some time in the future. But currently it is not in evidence and not close to in evidence. Trumps previous military interventions have all been short and sweet, and mostly successful. The evidence that this one will not be is ???

As a result, I don't think many people actually care about the intervention itself, they are using it to grind some other axe. For some its pretty obvious: Israel. For others also obvious: TDS. For many others: I cannot tell as of yet.

Trumps previous military interventions have all been short and sweet, and mostly successful. The evidence that this one will not be is ???

  1. Iran is clearly a much bigger nut to crack

  2. The administration has already said it won't be that short -- September is what I heard yesterday

  3. Any requirement for action now due to nuclear progress (which the administration has claimed) demonstrates the previous intervention was not very successful. I don't really believe this intervention was necessary to keep Iran from getting the bomb in the immediate future, but obviously I have no access to the data on that; I just assume if a government official's lips are moving he's probably lying.

  4. There doesn't seem to be a useful exit. Unlike Venezuela, there's no lower-down officials more willing to play ball. Nor any rebels -- the protestors turned out to be the equivalent of right-wing militias and the Minneapolis people, all noise and no ability for real action when push comes to shove. Reza Palahvi, unsuprisingly, has nothing. Everyone who can fight is aligned with the Islamic regime. The normal way to handle such a situation (which is a typical one in war) is a land invasion, but the US claims it won't do that. And certainly it would be quite messy if it happened.

Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?

Iran as in the regime sponsoring every pack of rabid bugsnipes from here to Timbukthree for the past 47 years?

Yes? All this sponsoring has done far less damage to the region and to Europe than American operations. I'm yet to hear a good reason why this should be a blip on anyone's radar.

They helped defeat ISIS.

Two of their neighboring countries were occupied for long periods of time with well over a million dead as a result. Why wouldn't they help them?

The big refugee waves from Europe came from US military interventions that Iran helped shut down

Perhaps if Trump didn't want to lose voters for attacking Iran he should have ran on it and tried to justify it.

Of course, if Trump ran on "we've been at war with Iran for 47 years and under my administration we'll start a regional war" my guess is that he would have just straight up lost the election

I'm just saying it's not quite as black-and-white as it might seem.

if Trump ran on "we've been at war with Iran for 47 years and under my administration we'll start a regional war" my guess is that he would have just straight up lost the election

And if the world was made of pudding, my guess is that it would be a lot harder to build skyscrapers.

What is the limit? How low can the republicans sink while the base stays loyal?

This current situation still appears better than the previous baseline.

Americans should do what the British are doing by abandoning the torries en mass

I would disagree. The UK can afford that better than we can because they are not as polarized; their current situation is a conflict within the local Blue Tribe analogue, with no significant Red Tribe to speak of. This lowers the pressure significantly, and allows maneuvers that are probably not survivable in our context.

The UK can afford that better than we can because they are not as polarized; their current situation is a conflict within the local Blue Tribe analogue, with no significant Red Tribe to speak of.

I don't think that's fair. The European Red Tribe isn't going to look the same as the American one, and while the hard right has it's gripes with Farage, they aren't that different from the American hard right's gripes with the Republicans. On top of that, there's Lowe, who might not be polling high, but ir doesn't seem fair to call him insignificant.

That said, I think you're right about the "can afford" bit starting a new party in Europe, even in a first past the post system like the UK's, seems to be doable with a lot less friction than in a giant country like the US.

I don't think that's fair. The European Red Tribe isn't going to look the same as the American one, and while the hard right has it's gripes with Farage, they aren't that different from the American hard right's gripes with the Republicans.

To give two examples, it doesn't seem to me that there's a European analogue to the Christian Right or to Gun Culture in terms of relatively-large, cohesive and politically-powerful subcultures. It seems to me that this is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, a distinct, cohesive, organized Red Tribe is the reason America is such an outlier politically from the European political scene. On the other hand, it means polarization and thus tribal conflict gets much worse, because legible structure makes coordinating large-scale, serious meanness much easier. And in America, the coordinated meanness is much further along the escalation spiral: we're actually trying to do mass deportations now, and Blues are actually coordinating terrorism to fight back against those efforts.

The UK right is pretty clearly willing to accept the left's electoral victory. Their reasoning, which is in my view correct, is that a left victory will result in very bad policies, which will in turn discredit the left further and rebound in their favor. This is a risky bet, but the risk seems rational and acceptable to me, given their situation. However, a dominant variable in that calculation is that they don't really have much of a choice, because they have no legible path to victory other than that provided by electoral politics.

In America, by contrast, I'm willing to accept the left's electoral victory, for certain definitions of "accept" that do not preclude their leaders and agents being murdered by people on my side, in much the way they have been willing to "accept" my electoral wins, modulo murders of my leaders and agents by people on their side. That doesn't change the fact that if such murders happen to them, they are not going to accept it as I have, and instead are going to escalate to the limits of their capability, or the fact that I will support unlimited escalation in return. Electoral Politics is still plan A in both the European and American contexts, but American politics has a legible plan B, and both tribes having been in a degenerate orbit toward it for at least a decade now.

it doesn't seem to me that there's a European analogue to the Christian Right

Mostly correct.

or to Gun Culture in terms of relatively-large, cohesive and politically-powerful subcultures

Correct.

The UK right is pretty clearly willing to accept the left's electoral victory.

Also (...mostly...) correct. Yeah, Europeans aren't as good at bottom-up organizing, and there isn't anything resembling the American Red Tribe alternative culture and institutions, I just think you're going a bit far when Mr. Brexit is making a credible bid for prime minister, and you're calling it an "intra-Blue conflict".

Also (...mostly...) correct.

...I guess the logic there is that a crisis hits, and the army has to pick sides? That's not a wildly implausible outcome, I suppose, but note how all action still routes through the state.

I just think you're going a bit far when Mr. Brexit is making a credible bid for prime minister, and you're calling it an "intra-Blue conflict".

Have you seen the clips where Farage categorically rejects the idea of mass deportations? He seems to be all-in on the idea that Conservatives have to find a way to convince the immigrants to vote for them, undergoing whatever self-modification would be necessary to gain immigrant votes. Alternatively, his claim that no one has done more than him to suppress the "far right".

There was a time when people would have laughed at the idea of calling George W Bush a Blue. But he is in fact a Blue, and was a Blue in the past as well, even if lesser polarization made that difficult to see. Him endorsing the democrats over Trump is in fact him being consistent to his tribal nature. Farage seems similar to me.

...I guess the logic there is that a crisis hits, and the army has to pick sides?

I actually don't know what the logic is, it's just a poll I've seen people discuss, don't know if any respondents had a chance to elaborate on their thinking.

but note how all action still routes through the state.

We're Europeans, please be patient we us.

Have you seen the clips where Farage categorically rejects the idea of mass deportations?

(...)

There was a time when people would have laughed at the idea of calling George W Bush a Blue.

Yeah, I did, but this is kinda what I meant with "similar gripes". Yeah, Europe might be stuck in a doom-loop, where the liberal establishment does something insane, people vote against it, and what they voted for turns out to be containment. I'll even happily admit the Farage is even more worrying here, because it's a bad sign when he doesn't even wait to win before stabbing his supporters in the back, but the general patterns can be observed even in Trump.

I think Bush is a point in my favor here. My point is that even though he turned out to be Blue, people voting for him wanted someone Red, so their support for him should counted towards the Red Tribe.

I now realize I started to type too soon. This is a response to what I thought you wrote for a moment, but didn't really write. Posting anyway.

The UK right is pretty clearly willing to accept the left's electoral victory. Their reasoning, which is in my view correct, is that a left victory will result in very bad policies, which will in turn discredit the left further and rebound in their favor.

Does the UK right imagine themselves as patiently waiting, playing politics while the electorate learns the correct lessons? They don't give off an appearance of being that serious or prepared to me.

I know these polls are volatile -- more like (dis)approval polls of the current boss than anything else -- but stakes are potentially very high. "Treat all migrants as if they are citizens", enfranchise all residents with the right to vote, and accepting "responsibility for the climate emergency and support the people forced to move" are all things that would freak me out. If I read them on an official party platform and saw that party gain steam I'd think it's time to get serious about winning power. Among the numerous plans to stamp out out the last vestiges of industry and productivity there's also the casual pledges to do things like implement all "the reforms proposed" in a 2000 page report. This appears like a 15 year old legacy talking point, but it could also be the most popular pathway to smuggle in more media control.

I do not know too much about UK politics. There may be many good reasons to suspect the Greens will remain marginalized in politics and won't rub off on their failing Labour brethren-- at least not in consequential ways. If there's even a few reasons to take the rise of the Greens seriously, then the prospect of not-racist vote coalescing to empower the pack as many lefty gambits into platform, choose later party, even in limited form, that would scare the hell out of me. Expanding the franchise is already happening in a way that will favor whichever flavor of leftwardly one prefers. I wouldn't want to play chicken with any of this. Not unless I had immense trust in the system. That such a system would apply appropriate constraints until the voters are educated enough to reveal secret weapon Prime Minister Curtis Yarvin.

Does the UK right imagine themselves as patiently waiting, playing politics while the electorate learns the correct lessons? They don't give off an appearance of being that serious or prepared to me.

I know these polls are volatile -- more like (dis)approval polls of the current boss than anything else -- but stakes are potentially very high.

Yes, but keep in mind that it's not just about Greens overtaking Labour, it's also about Reform (Nigel Farage's party) overtaking the Tories. It's hard to frame that as "patiently waiting" IMO.

overtaking the Tories

I was under a mistaken impression that was not only possible, but likely, and that they had already achieved something like similar polling after the long crash Tory crashout. In reality they've still only achieved a threatening trend nationally, albeit with plenty of hope, uncertainty, and some some convincing local performances-- yes?

Are we looking at the same chart? They're leading by 7 points. The Greens are a bigger threat at this point.

More comments

Instead, he threw it all away for some sort of purity test, like many extremists do.

What did he do?

He went on Tucker Carlsons podcast, and did a pretty good job defending his ideas. Tucker took on a sort of fatherly role, trying to get Nick to grow up a little. It actually ended really positively.

And then like a day later he was back to bashing Tucker as a CIA plant or something.

Telling all of his followers to boycott the election or vote Dem because the Republicans are too pro-Israel for his liking. It just seems delusional to me.

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