site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14087 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.

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

It's not for no reason, to the degree that the US has ever had a consistent diplomatic position that position has been "don't touch the boats", IE "don't fuck with international trade".

The Iranians weren't blocking the Straits of Hormuz until after the war began.

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