site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13372 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.

I don't think it's about being old or young. The wars of our great-grandparents' day were existential, at least if you were in Europe. And notably the one party in the Iran conflict for whom this stuff is - rightly or wrongly - somewhat existential is Israel and they are ultimately pretty accepting of casualties. Likewise Ukraine.

If you are American of course it's a bit more complicated, but I still think that WW2 was visibly more urgent from an American POV in ways that created greater tolerance for large-scale casualties. Japan attacked the US; and the Nazi regime were very powerful, very dangerous genuine racial supremacists who had taken over France and Poland, presided over mass bombing and mass executions, and had the explicit goal of ethnic cleansing Eastern Europe for German expansion. Putin just isn't in the same league, and neither is Iran.

And notably the one party in the Iran conflict for whom this stuff is - rightly or wrongly - somewhat existential is Israel and they are ultimately pretty accepting of casualties.

The war is obviously more existential for Iran than it is for any of the aggressors. The destruction of the Iranian state is a plausible outcome, indeed it may be Netanyahu's goal. And a million excess deaths (mostly due to starvation and disease) is a reasonable estimate of the likely human cost of a failed state in Iran.

The war is obviously more existential for Iran than it is for any of the aggressors.

To be clear, Iran IS the aggressor -- certainly with respect to Israel. People seem to forget the facts that (1) for many years, Iran has been relentlessly attacking Israel by means of its proxies; (2) Iran's leadership has openly threatened to wipe Israel off the map; and (3) Iran's leadership has prioritized building a nuclear bomb.

I agree that at the moment, Iran has a lot more to lose than Israel or the United States. Probably Iran's leadership should have thought about that before engaging in its aggressive behavior.

Talking smack about an unfriendly country doesn't constitute waging war against them. Building nukes may justify a pre-emptive war as a matter of sound policy, but it doesn't as a matter of international law, and it certainly doesn't make you the aggressor if someone does wage a pre-emptive war against you - as a matter of ordinary English meanings of words, building nukes does not constitute aggression unless they are used.

You have a better case on point (1) - Iran is indeed supporting proxies which are attacking Israel (and indeed committing war crimes against Israeli civilians). But they are not an aggressor here - they skate on two technicalities.

  • The attacks on Israel aren't by Iranians and don't come from Iranian territory. There is a lot of state practice (very much including the US and Israel) of funding plausibly deniable proxies to engage in military action against countries you are at peace with. I don't think the involvement of US government officials in NORAID makes the US the aggressor in the IRA's war against my country. Iran funding Hamas and Hezbullah is a hostile act against Israel, and a despicable one given the circumstances in the current year, but it isn't military aggression in the way the term is usually used in practice.
  • Hamas and Hezbullah's attacks on Israel are not aggressive. Both are resistance movements that started their wars when Israel was in belligerent occupation of the Palestinian Territories and southern Lebanon respectively. If NATO funds resistance to Russia in occupied Ukraine, that is a hostile act against Russia but not an aggressive one. Hezbullah has continued their defensive war against Israel long after Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory and have been told to stop by the UNSC, which makes their continued war against Israel wrong, but it doesn't make it aggression.

Talking smack about an unfriendly country doesn't constitute waging war against them. Building nukes may justify a pre-emptive war as a matter of sound policy, but it doesn't as a matter of international law, and it certainly doesn't make you the aggressor if someone does wage a pre-emptive war against you - as a matter of ordinary English meanings of words, building nukes does not constitute aggression unless they are used.

You have a better case on point (1) - Iran is indeed supporting proxies which are attacking Israel (and indeed committing war crimes against Israeli civilians). But they are not an aggressor here - they skate on two technicalities.

The attacks on Israel aren't by Iranians and don't come from Iranian territory. There is a lot of state practice (very much including the US and Israel) of funding plausibly deniable proxies to engage in military action against countries you are at peace with. I don't think the involvement of US government officials in NORAID makes the US the aggressor in the IRA's war against my country. Iran funding Hamas and Hezbullah is a hostile act against Israel, and a despicable one given the circumstances in the current year, but it isn't military aggression in the way the term is usually used in practice.

Hamas and Hezbullah's attacks on Israel are not aggressive. Both are resistance movements that started their wars when Israel was in belligerent occupation of the Palestinian Territories and southern Lebanon respectively. If NATO funds resistance to Russia in occupied Ukraine, that is a hostile act against Russia but not an aggressive one. Hezbullah has continued their defensive war against Israel long after Israel withdrew from Lebanese territory and have been told to stop by the UNSC, which makes their continued war against Israel wrong, but it doesn't make it aggression.

I wasn't aware that you were using the word "aggressor" as a legal term of art. And assuming that the word is in fact such a term, I am extremely skeptical of your claim that proxy attacks do not count.

Please provide cites and links to support your claim. TIA.

Separately, since you have used the phrase "Palestinian Territories," can you please tell me (1) which land areas constitute "Palestinian Territories" (e.g. do they include Ramallah, Gaza City, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.); and (2) how those areas came to be "Palestinian Territories"? TIA

I am extremely skeptical of your claim that proxy attacks do not count.

It seems extraordinarily obvious that proxies do not count, based on common international practice. Russia isn't nuking NATO over Ukraine, and in Vietnam and Korea the US didn't nuke the USSR or China.

Russia isn't nuking NATO over Ukraine

  1. In your view, does the US control the Ukrainian military the way that Iran has in the past with Hezbollah?

  2. If you believe that the US does exercise that level of control, if the US ordered the Ukrainian military to start attacking Russian villages, do you believe that Russia would have any justification to retaliate directly against the United States?

  1. Yes, if not more-so, though I think it's better framed as "NATO" or "The Western Bloc" more broadly than just the U.S.A as countries like the UK, France, Poland and Germany have also played important roles in the process. Significant numbers of volunteers/mercenaries from western countries have fought on the Ukrainian side, and no effort has been made to prevent them from transiting to Ukraine. The U.S.A. has provided targeting information, restrained Ukraine from hitting certain targets at certain times and given the green light at others, provided training, and encouraged them to continue fighting. Russia has covertly attempted to hit shipments in Europe, and I'm still not convinced Russia wasn't involved in destroying a Tennessee munitions plant that killed sixteen people, but Russia has stopped short of bombing shipments across the Ukrainian border.

  2. Historically, no, that has not been considered a justification for direct action against a state sponsor. Rumors of Russian arms and intelligence supplied to the Taliban did not lead to strikes against Russia. Chinese "Volunteers" in Korea did not lead to bombing of Red China in the Korean War, nor did we strike against the major Communist bloc nations during Vietnam, nor did the USSR strike America during their own Afghan adventure. The major powers have mostly agreed that they are all allowed to sell weapons and give equipment and information to proxy fighters, even if those proxy fighters are in direct conflict with another major power, without it igniting a major power conflict.

Now, the operative point there doing a lot of heavy lifting is that we're mostly talking about "major powers," and Iran may or may not qualify. Right now Iran is fighting for its sovereignty, trying to avoid becoming a fake country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Lebanon where everyone (USA, Israel, Iran itself) has agreed that everyone can launch limited bombing campaign on occasion without it qualifying as a "war." Sovereignty and the laws of war have degraded, there's a big list of countries that lack the kind of sovereignty where the international community appear to have decided that a limited bombing campaign is allowed whenever another country judges it necessary.

Yes, if not more-so, though I think it's better framed as "NATO" or "The Western Bloc" more broadly than just the U.S.A as countries like the UK, France, Poland and Germany have also played important roles in the process.

Well let's be specific. According to Iran, Hezbollah has confirmed that it is under the command of Ayatollah Khamenei:

https://wanaen.com/hezbollah-we-are-under-the-command-of-ayatollah-khamenei/

Assuming you believe this, my question is who exactly is commanding the Ukranian military? Apparently you don't think it's President Trump. You believe it's a group of NATO leaders working together informally?

Historically, no, that has not been considered a justification for direct action against a state sponsor.

Ok, so if the United Kingdom funded and armed the Ukranian military; trained them; and commanded them to start attacking Russian villages; and the Ukranian military followed its instructions and attacked Russian villages, massacring thousands of people, then IN YOUR VIEW, Russia would NOT be justified in retaliating against the United Kingdom. Do I understand you correctly?

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