site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13548 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.

A tiny note on the war

In the previous thread, I got some pushback for suggesting that not only did the US strike the Iranian school in Minab, killing 170 children or something like that, but perhaps it did so intentionally (or at least without remorse for the possible consequences of erroneous targeting). I admit that wasn't fully sincere. I realize that, even morals aside, there is no perceived military value in bombing children, at least not for the US (I do think Israelis may target children of IRGC officers out of their usual Bronze Age blood feud sentiment, Oct 7, Gaza and all, seen enough of their remarks to this effect; but then again they don't operate Tomahawks).

Well now the question on it having been an American strike appears settled. As for the intent – it's not so straightforward:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has gutted the Pentagon oversight offices that would have investigated the recent strike on an Iranian girls’ school — a move that has degraded America’s ability to protect civilians amid its largest air campaign in decades.
The Pentagon chief last year slashed offices that didn’t contribute to his goal of “lethality,” including the group that assists in limiting risk to civilians, known as the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. Around 200 employees who worked on the issue, including at that office, have been reduced by about 90 percent, according to two current and former officials and a person familiar with the effort. The team that handles civilian casualties at Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has dropped from 10 to one.
Hegseth can’t close the offices because they are approved by Congress. But he has managed to make them nearly inoperable, according to the people, as the Pentagon investigates its responsibility in what could be the worst U.S.-led killing of civilians since 2003. Iranian state media said the strike killed about 170 children and 14 teachers.
“The fact that our secretary of Defense, that our Central Command commander, cannot actually tell us whether or not they dropped a bomb in this location, that is so unbelievably unacceptable,” said Wes Bryant, the Pentagon’s former chief of civilian harm assessments until last year. “It just points even more to recklessness in this, in the entire planning and execution of this campaign, the fact that they don’t have any idea.”

Does it matter if there was no intent if the United States, as of now, also has a revealed preference to not bother with minimizing such risks, in favor of «lethality» and some zany Judeo-Christian nationalism courtesy the power-tripping macho TV host Pete Hegseth? I believe it does, but marginally; about as much as those girls matter to Lethal Pete. I rest my case.

More to the point. It's remarkable that there's so little discussion of contemporary historical events on here. I won't criticize anyone, be the change you want etc.; but what we are seeing is pretty astonishing from the culture war standpoint. Could someone like Pete be imaginable as the Secretary of War – no, Defense – in 2023? 2019, even? 2016? It looks as if the politically dominant culture of the United States changed overnight. Does everyone just like it too much to find the change worth commenting on?

There are an amazing number of people responding with, essentially, "shit happens in war", seemingly with giving any further thought to questions like "can we make shit happen less in war?", "does what we're trying to achieve justify this shit?", and "should the fact that shit happens in war make us more cautious about going to war?"

Christ

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign. If the answer is zero - you put such burdensome rules of engagement that make US victory impossible. If it is one - we are right at the tolerance border.

Iran hasn't send the US list of civilian object and military objects with coordinates verified by international bodies that they are true. US is forced to operate half blind. Iran itself does way more indiscriminate targeting from what I have observed. It is just that their weapons are shitty.

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign. If the answer is zero - you put such burdensome rules of engagement that make US victory impossible. If it is one - we are right at the tolerance border.

I'd put it at "zero for the opening salvo", and then increasing over time. There's no excuse to not have a fully up to date target list for the first hour, when everything is choreographed and friction and Murphy haven't yet had a chance to really get to work.

Ok - what is the acceptable rate of school situated in former military barracks bombings in such a massive campaign.

It depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Look, I thinking the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski were justified. It was horrific, but weighed against the alternatives and the enormity the problem, it was probably the least bad option. It is, at the very least, highly arguable. If circumstances were different, however, it might not have been justified. Or, to take another example from the Middle East: there was a US airstrike in 2017 that killed ~200 civilians. Not great, and it is important to (sincerely) investigate why it happened and how it could be avoided in the future (and simply shrug and say 'oops'). But in the context of defeating ISIS, grudgingly tolerable.

What I see in the responses here is people using the mere existence of this problem of tradeoffs as an excuse not to care. If someone, questioned about the atomic bombings (or Tokyo, or Allied strategic bombing more generally), waved off the issue by saying "shit happens in war", I would take that as a very worrying sign regarding their instincts even if I agreed that the actions were ultimately justified. I certainly wouldn't want them making targeting decisions.

Iran itself does way more indiscriminate targeting from what I have observed. It is just that their weapons are shitty.

True, but also: irrelevant. The moral inadequacy of others is not an excuse for your own behavior.

For this war zero. Because it's pointless unjust war of aggression started for no reason. At least not one our leaders can articulate.

The lack of articulation is really on the general public though. There is a very long winded explanation involving Iran's ballistic missile production rates and available US/Israel strike capabiltiy that comes down to "either we hit them now, or we will never again have the capability to significantly deter them from developing nuclear weapons without incurring massive civilian casualties as colateral damage". The administration made the (likely correct) decision that such an explanation would only play with the analysis nerds and fall disasterously flat with the general public, and didnt really bother.

As far as the unjust part goes, any government that happily massacres 30,000+ of its own citizens (by its own admission, outside estimates are higher) for the crime of protesting has lost all moral legitimacy, and its removal by outside forces is just. Wise? Dunno. Just? Absolutely. Fuck the mullahs, and fuck anyone who supports them.

I would guess that's the Israeli's reasoning I'd like to here Trump say that as eloquently as you. The administration has offered up half a dozen reasons and win conditions. So I'm not going to read tea leaves to figure it out. If what you said is correct then they should consistently say that and.

Yes sure the Iranian regime sucks but it's not they job of the US to overthrow every bad government in the world. The US has explicitly said this war is not for the people of Iran and that we don't care about civilian causalities, also that we won't be doing nation building and that they'd be fine with someone internal taking power. They've said... many other things to. But that is the whole problem there is no consistent communication of reasons and goals. You can certainly derive one from the Jackson Pollak of ideas they've thrown around but I don't have any faith in it when they can't keep their story straight.

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