site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11493 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's woke to complain whenever the U.S. fails to be absolutely perfect and not complain at all when Russia/Islamic Regimes deliberately murder civilians with specific intention.

I do not see Dase equally criticizing Russian, Iranian, and Palestinian attacks on civilian populations.

In short, isolated demands for rigor on political grounds is a classic woke manifestation.

I don't know what @DaseindustriesLtd thinks about Russian, Iranian, and Palestinian attacks on civilians, but... without going too deeply into his biography without his consent, I'll put it this way... he left Russia a few years ago. He seems to be a Russian nationalist, but it doesn't seem to be of the "Z" variety.

As for woke, he's definitely not that.

Because American propaganda and self image is (so far) "we are heroes fighting for truth and justice".

Tell Iranians or Russians "you are not good guys, you are brutish murdering bastards" and they will laugh.

Stings that will hurt would be "You are not world second super power, you are Africa tier rotting shithole living out of real super power dwindling inheritance" or "You are fake Muslims, worse than outright infidels, what is happening to you is divine judgement for your sins, your only future is hell fire".

Two things: The demand for perfection and Isolated demands for rigor.

When it comes to demands of perfection, it depends on the level of fuckup. The level of fuckup also depends on capabilities. If I blow up a terrorist and some kids also die, there may be some discussion based on capabilities of if I could have targeted him when children weren't around, but otherwise it was an unfortunate necessity. If I aim for the target and miss and kill children, well then there was some level of fuckup. The amount of fuckup varies from "humans are far from perfect, what are you expecting" if my technology is at the level of catapults to "this needs to investigated" if my technology is such that I can precision target a specific mosquito from halfway across the world. In the latter example, even if the answer ends up being that better technology doesn't eliminate the potential for human error, investigating is still important for identifying ways to not make that mistake in the future.

I have no intention of speaking for Dase, but when it comes to Russia and Palestine, there is some of the above - Palestine does not have precision targeting or a monopoly of force necessary to pick and choose targets (even if I give them benefit of the doubt and don't think of them as terrorists). But more importantly, we have already concluded that they are pieces of shit and choose to act immorally. We want them to behave morally, but we have given up expecting it so there is no benefit to spending more time on it than necessary to document their atrocities for posterity. Their sins do not create permission for us to sin.

But we're not (yet) in charge of the Russians, Iranians, or Palestinians. Any complaints we make about them would be outward-facing, not inward-facing, a fundamental difference in character. While I agree that we shouldn't hold our enemies to a lighter moral standard, there is literally less reason to criticize them, because they are already a foreign adversary.

We know that one of the attack vectors used by our geopolitical rivals is to specifically emphasize these points to cause political strife, withdrawal from conflict, and to destabilize the US.

Regardless of underlying virtue associated with these conversations, we should be much more careful and diligent in doing what our enemies want us to do.

I seldom see that happening.

Does focusing one's campaigning on one's own government, instead of others, really count as an isolated demand for rigour?

Arguing that your side surrender because conflict result in unacceptable outcomes is not good game theory when being attacked by an aggressor.

Isn't Dase Russian? Here he refers to the Russians as "us" and the Americans as "you".

You can take man out of world second super power, but you cannot take world second super power out of man.

Does focusing one's campaigning on one's own government, instead of others, really count as an isolated demand for rigour?

I don't know, but I am pretty confident that when it comes to Israel, the majority of the demands for perfection are coming from non-Israelis.

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