site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12732 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.

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.

I believe this is just convenience, not because of some iron rule of civilization - if you are aiding one side (even with simply intelligence or war material) then you have violated the duty of neutrality. I'm sure you can marshal many counter-examples in international practice - for instance, Hitler cited US violations of neutrality in his speech declaring war on the United States.

Citing Hitler in international law precedent is kinda iffy, as the modern international order is essentially built on a repudiation of Hitler and Imperial Japan. The starting postulate of modern international law is: "Hitler was bad, don't be Hitler."

See my longer reply below to omw for more detail, but this is a long running position in the American approach to international law and morality, especially illustrated by the two World Wars. The Lusitania was attacked, and that was a national tragedy and an affront to American sovereignty, there's no question that Germany would not have been seen as justified if they attacked a gun works in Missouri. Pearl Harbor was a "day that will live in infamy," it was a bad thing that Japan did that, despite the United States taking explicitly anti-Japanese policy positions in the Pacific prior Pearl Harbor.

The Lusitania was attacked, and that was a national tragedy and an affront to American sovereignty

And this was due to a coordinated propaganda effort to get the United States into the war; Lusitania was carrying munitions which as I understand it made it a pretty uncontroversial target and the controversy had more to do with the fact that the Germans did not give the passengers the chance to get into lifeboats before sinking her.

Pearl Harbor was a "day that will live in infamy," it was a bad thing that Japan did that, despite the United States taking explicitly anti-Japanese policy positions in the Pacific prior Pearl Harbor.

Well yeah - it's always bad when you are attacked. Do you expect politicians to give a neutral account of their actions?

I would argue that your reply to omw is basically wrong - for instance, Laos was an ostensibly neutral country during the Vietnam War; the North Vietnamese used that neutral territory to move munitions (secretly, because it was supposedly neutral), and as a result the US bombed Laos (secretly, because it was supposedly neutral). As precedential evidence goes it supports the theory that states that violate their neutrality become fair game.

Similarly, if memory serves, MacArthur wanted to attack China during the Korean War, and, as I understand it, what stopped this was prudential judgments about expanding the war, not concerns about international law.

The reason proxy wars don't always degenerate to large armed conflict is because the relevant powers fighting the proxy war think the proxy war is a better way to engage in the contest than escalating to armed conflict, not because they cannot or "are not allowed."

The reason proxy wars don't always degenerate to large armed conflict is because the relevant powers fighting the proxy war think the proxy war is a better way to engage in the contest than escalating to armed conflict, not because they cannot or "are not allowed."

I tend to agree with this. A blanket rule that a proxy attack somehow "doesn't count" simply doesn't make sense.

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