site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9961 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.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred;

Agreed. Although the problem is that the "avoid hatred" ship sailed a long time ago.

Which eliminates the entire idea of inspiring fear to avoid hatred.

Which eliminates the entire idea of inspiring fear to avoid hatred.

? I read it as not that you should inspire fear to avoid hatred (that is, the fear is a means of avoiding being hated), but that when inspiring fear (if you can't also be loved) to avoid inadvertently inspiring hatred as a side-effect of the fear.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated...

I always read this as Love > Fear in and of itself, but Love can easily turn into Hate, while Fear will not turn to Hate as easily and is therefore preferable to Love.

But I guess it takes all sorts.

Which eliminates the entire idea of inspiring fear to avoid hatred.

Perhaps, but I think the basic point is correct. It's not really worth worry about whether Iran's leadership REALLY hates us now. Because they already did, and even if they didn't have reason to, they would surely manufacture some grievance.

I think the fear of the USA also more or less peaked after the Axis of Evil speech and Iraq invasion. For twenty years American politicians have made bombing Iran everything from a punchline to a campaign promise. They knew it was coming and didn't come to the table. My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.

Being afraid of the bully can make you give in, it can also make you bring a gun to school.

My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.

They have long concluded this. I suspect they would have broken out during the Obama Admin if not for Stuxnet. Post-Obama a series of US and Israeli bombings are the only reason they haven't broken out, as the timeline if unimpeded is probably about 1 year.

My worry is that at this point, the surviving leadership decides that a bomb is the only path to security.

Being afraid of the bully can make you give in, it can also make you bring a gun to school.

I think that this is a variation on "now they'll REALLY hate us." The fact is that for some time Iran has been making it a high priority to build a nuclear bomb.

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