site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8998 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 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.

Are Rubio and Vance done for? On the ground I don't see much discontent from rank-and-file MAGA, in fact at this point less discontent than over the Benghazi situation, that could change depending on exactly how big of a disaster this becomes for the global economy.

I think this hurts Vance incredibly, because carrying water for Israel's wars is not going to endear him to any of the nativist factions that he naturally appeals to. Rubio not so much, he was always more of a neocon, so anyone who supported Rubio in 2016 is probably happy to see this war kick off.

That's certainly the concensus on manifold and other betting sites- big shift towards Rubio and against Vance recently. But Vance is still the clear favorite at 45% vs 27% right now.

Right now, not much has happened and foreign policy simply isn’t a very emotive issue for most Americans.

So far every knife out for Trump has failed. When the first real hit lands (when he gets unpopular enough and someone - probably not one of the central players - is willing to gamble on going all in) everyone will reposition themselves. I don’t think this means it’s over for Rubio or Vance necessarily. The Democratic base was antiwar since 2005 and they chose Obama, Hillary, Biden. Immigration, law and order and the economy are the top three policy issues for Republicans.

My feeling is that:

  1. Casualties (which may well remain moderately low) don’t typically blow back in the face of wartime presidents. If anything, deaths make people mad and angry and bloodthirsty. Vietnam wasn’t even an exception until it had been a very long time indeed. If Iran sinks a big ship and kills 200 US navy sailors a lot of ambivalent Republican commentators will say “well now we do have to punish them”.

  2. Trump’s tariff performance suggests he isn’t willing to allow oil to be much above $100 for long at all. A comparatively ‘principled’ or ideological neocon might try to make a case to the public, Trump won’t. That might not save his polling (which has been in decline for a while) but it might be enough for Vance and Rubio.

When the first real hit lands (when he gets unpopular enough and someone - probably not one of the central players - is willing to gamble on going all in) everyone will reposition themselves.

I have been hearing this for ten years now. I want some deep introspection about why it's definitely real this time before I take it too seriously.

I didn’t say it would happen this time. I said ‘when’ it happens. Trump can still easily save himself here.

Trump’s tariff performance suggests he isn’t willing to allow oil to be much above $100 for long at all.

He may find that it's not up to him.

True, but he can try desperately to bring it down, and even his advisors will tell him that unilaterally ending hostilities with Iran is the fastest route to that.

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