site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20845 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 got a culture war hot take for ya'll in the dying hours of this thread while I marinate infront of a screen on account of I fell off a fucking ladder and rolled my ankle like a QUA-SAUN'T:

Qualification before I even start: obviously its bad if anyone is killed, and I would prefer if none of this happened, or if it did happen it stayed as geographically isolated as possible, but given that it hasn't:

I am not fan of Iran or it's ruling class, but if I had to pick between them and the gulf states, I'd pick them every time. The gulf states are full of degenerate lazy assholes, run by people who are dumb as shit outside their little lanes, ruling over people who are parasitic insects on the global economy, and I don't give a shit what happens to them or anyone who chooses to live there. It is the worst place I have ever been payed to go, I would rather go back to bucharest and get chased down a half finished bridge by stray dogs then spend another hour in Dubai, and anyone who likes it has no taste; a crime worse than being a bastard.

What the fuck is even the point of these places? At least Switzerland and Singapore have some class as they wash your blood money; I just don't want to hear another dude talk about how nice his place in dubai is. Bitch, Dubai is rich person Mcdonalds, be a real man and get you a place in Macau and another in Monaco and a third in Sun Valley.

Iran is an oil state that completely ruined itself through religious revolution and now regularly mass murders its population whenever they vet the balls to protest every couple years and exports terrorism throughout the region. Are the gulf states retarded? I guess so. Would any sane person prefer to live in Iran over them? No.

Broadly agreed. Iran atleast capable of putting together a solid situation whilst essentially everything South of there has nil chance outside of occasional massive petrochemical windfalls that they will inevitably squander in the longrun.

Dumb analogy: is the Arab Gulf basically the Avatar of the world? A bajillion dollars and zero cultural impact (at least in the West).

No cultural impact he said sipping his alcohol and coffee with sugar while sitting on a sofa and wearing a cotton shirt posting on a machine that works on algorithms made with algebra.

Are we giving all the civilizational accomplishments of the Chinese to the Mongolians since they had whatever tenure as colonial overlords?

I'll take this bait.

Because there is a bastard here. And it's the one that laughs at industry.

You sit in some People's Republic of Museums and you spit on the few who dare to do instead of waiting to die. Because they do with so little class.

Has Howard Roark no taste? Why does he insist of making gawdy metal things, why doesn't he just lay there and die? Is Hank Rearden not a dangerous fool making monuments to his vanity instead of giving his all for boomers and children like good Jim Taggart?

A few poor bedouins lucked on some, not much, but some, oil. And those poor bedouins were sly enough to turn this not into an endless war, not into a brutal theocracy, but into one of the most successful cities in the world.

And people like you, who feel small in the presence of achievement, will instinctively need to lower it. The search of greatness must simply be a sign of one's vanity. Poor Yankee doodle so classless he thinks the feather in his cap is macaroni.

But it's not low. Greatness is great. Bending a desert full of essentially nothing into a paradise is nigh miraculous and demonstrates clear ability that commands respect to the wise, or at least, the sane.

In the end if it does get destroyed, the world will be worse for all the people this city has welcomed and one of the few places in the world that rewards skill with opportunity will be lost, hastening our spiral towards world spanning destruction and mayhem in exchange.

Damn you and damn all like you who worship death.

War brings out the worst in people. Especially on message boards where no one is actually in danger of dying. But we sure have opinions about who deserves to die and who doesn't.

Dial it down.

To hell with opinions. I'm making an argument. I shall like to see it answered. As is after all the point of this forum.

Hear hear.

They trade oil for a high standard of living, and Dubai banks the oil money locally.

Now, to be clear, Iran is in some ways morally superior to these countries- at least the locals do actual work instead of abusing indentured servants, for example, and the gulf states don't have stellar human rights records either. But let's not sugarcoat the Iranian regime; they're fucking retards whose sine qua non is being enemies of America, who have seemingly failed at both their good governance and their religious goals. The same cannot be said for the gulf states.

Literally, the gulf states are the bull case for monarchy. You know what most Arabs do when they discover an ocean of oil? Have a civil war and let the winner squander the money on terrorism, with no benefit to the people. Saudi citizens might be lazy fucks, but they don't do that. Saudi Arabia is a developed country with a high standard of living, that's managed to avoid sanctions. Same for Qatar, Kuwait, etc. Iran hasn't had a civil war recently, but you know what they spend their oil money on? 'Cause it ain't good governance. They're out of running water in the capital. That's very unlikely in Riyadh despite supplying water to it being a harder problem. The Gulf Monarchies are basically achieving both their human and religious goals, even if they don't get all their foreign policy goals and have poor human rights records. Yes, they cheated by using oil money, but this is not a foolproof loophole- just ask Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, etc. Does the median petrostate benefit the people at all? I guess Russia's oil money enables a military machine that provides economic stimulus.

For avoiding the petrostate trap, hats off to the gulf Arabs. This is actually a hard problem and they solved it.

The Gulf Arabs are absolutely in the petrostate trap. They don't make things, they just function as a shady tax haven and cheap-energy zone for certain industries. They have ambitions in AI, not in making AI models but buying GPUs made by industrious countries, hosting AI models made by clever companies, exploiting their cheap energy.

The Gulf buys US weapons, they buy Chinese weapons, they buy (or attempt to buy) US protection. Who makes the actual oil equipment and drills? Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Samsung... The Saudis have some Chinese made ballistic missiles waiting for Pakistani nuclear bombs they think they paid for.

Iran makes their own oil equipment. Iran's MAPNA Group makes gas power plants at world standards. They are trying to export technology, not just oil. Their oil industry has problems, as you would expect given sanctions. But it is their oil industry and not imported oil industry.

Iran makes things, they build their own missiles, drones and weapons. They develop their own strategies to take advantage of their enemies' weaknesses. Their proxies do a good job.

The UAE's proxies in Sudan haven't covered themselves in glory and they're merely fighting Sudan, not exactly a tough opponent. The Saudi army has all this fancy US gear. And how do they perform against the Houthis? They got wrecked by the Houthis.

Iran is far superior to the Gulf Monarchies in governance. They may be an enemy of the US but they are not stupid. There's a huge power gap between Iran and Turkey and Pakistan at the top end of the Islamic world, then there are the Gulf monarchies and below them assorted Arab riff-raff. The Gulf states don't know how to fight or do anything correctly. Their manifest impotence in this war is obvious, America has to do all the fighting for them.

Their land mostly sucks. There is a reason the Arab states never developed much in terms of civilization. It’s because most of its desert and not useful to develop agriculture and then more. Sort of like Alaska in some ways.

Just to distinguish, the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates are canonically the breadbaskets of the ancient world and are largely Arab.

The Arab States in the Gulf, not so much.

Are they? Egyptians are pretty separate to Arabs especially the vintage that made Egypt a big deal initially. That's like saying the Byzantines were Turks.

There is a reason the Arab states never developed much in terms of civilization

This is a truly bizarre take without more elaboration.

To be clear Iran cuts down on Chinas oil exporting allies which actually makes it fairly important for policing China and protecting all of the west Asian allies.

There's an alternate history where America winds up allied to the Iranian Shia coalition instead of the Turkish/Saudi/Egyptian Sunni one. I'm not sure that world is any more peaceful, but the Shia generally are less trouble than the far more numerous and expansionist Sunni.

I have a lot of respect for the Iranian people and their ability to organize. I have a lot of respect for Persian culture and their long and fractious history. There's a reason it's so unstable, and it is largely the result of tribal loyalties and clan-based societies. In this respect, the Iranians are no different from the Arabs.

Aesthetically is an entirely different story.

Brother the folks running Iran are not better. They also live off oil revenue and are degenerate.

The worse thing about Iran is that they rule over a populace with decent innate potential (well, subtracting anyone with means and will to leave).

Brother the folks running Iran are not better. They also live off oil revenue and are degenerate.

Yeah but they've had periods where they've managed to genuinely better themselves and hold actual jobs and whatnot.

What the fuck is even the point of these places?

Osama Bin Laden answered your question thusly:

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

You may have a different view of the moral valence of these facts, but they form a pretty useful model.

Dubai is cringe all the way. Simple comparison between Qatar airlines and Emirates shows everything wrong with the dubai mindset.

Lol, Qatar is just Dubai Jr. Same "build a fuckload of gaudy skyscrapers in the middle of the fucking desert despite miles of empty space everywhere while relying on a population made up of 90%+ imported labor to do all of the dirty day to day actual work."

And Qatar Airlines is just Emirates with a better marking team. They fly the same planes to the same destinations with the same customers (ie- economy is full of subcontintals on transit flights, biz class is full of rich arabs or western biz people). The whole experience from glitzy airport lounge that somehow manages to be less comfy than the average Scandinavian bus stop to the glitzy permium cabin pods that are underneath the outer cosmetic shell the same parts made by the same suppliers to the glitzy menu with gold-leafed cappacinos and "premium" wines is interchangeable with most airlines these days.

Except Qatar is quite light on glitz. Emirates are all glitz and flash. I have flown both and spend quite a lot of time in the lounges. Qatar color scheme is more subdued - calming purple instead of gold everywhere. Even the music is better. The personal are quite good at giving you whiskey and cashew and getting the fuck out until you land. They don't pester you every five minutes with "do you need anything sir?" They don't wake you up about seatbelts while you are sleeping. They let you sleep almost to the touchdown. The first class lounge is also better if you care about comfort - quieter, calming.

Emirates are built on the idea that the luxury must be displayed and consumed, qatar - that it needn't be.

As in, Dubai/emirates has superficial style and no substance? Does Qatar have substance?

No substance, but Doha doesn't try to suffocate you with opulence. It is built on slave labor and not a good place - not sure how to tell it - a month in Dubai - and you will be tired, a month in Doha - you will be rested.

Have you seen much of the middle east? Would you recommend any of it to people who want to sample parts of the whole world?

Right now - I would say that I wouldn't recommend anything of the middle east. But the best places I have been there are Erbil and Muscat. Dubai is Sin City - anything goes if you have money. Didn't like it that much. There is no reason to go to Saudi Arabia unless you are muslim. Doha is ok, but kinda boring.

Seconding Erbil, once things have calmed down. Also get out to the countryside while you're there, many historical sites.

Before going to the middle east, finish out europe/asia/ go to Romania/Bulgaria and do the ancient painted monastery loop from cluj to brasov/ go to plovdiv and veliko tarnovo to see some OLD christian sites.

If you've been everywhere else: Trust your heart. I still need to get to poland, cambodia and most of china before I think of doing middle eastern tourist shit.

Tangentially, is Bucharest really so bad as to be your go to "place only really better than that other place I really hate?" No experience traveling in that area, but was considering visiting someday.

No, bucharest is great if you aren't so tiktok pilled you can't deal with old stuff that isn't perfectly aesthetic; beautiful churches/arcades/opera house, totally insane palatial monument to being a dumbass you can visit, the people are nice as heck (to me, but my vibes are immaculate in person. I save all the poison for the internet.)

It just happens to be the place where; after dark; I had one beer over my tolerance; and then was chased by stray dogs up an unfinished road bridge. It's the funniest thing that has happened to me while traveling to relate in text form. Unless you get drunk and do dumb shit late at night you'll be fine.

You can add that they are literal slavers who fund ethnic cleansing terrorists in Sudan and betray fellow Muslims by allying with imperial outsiders and extract much of the region's natural endowment of wealth through resource and geography rents while spending it on sybaritic pleasures, and yeah, they basically exist to cater to the globalist rich who don't think they're cool or suave enough for any other tax haven with greater personality and style to it and would prefer to construct their personal images around chintzy opulence and unreproductive sex with Russia prostitutes, or at least that's the view of the place I receive.

has no taste; a crime worse than being a bastard

Absolutely based.

I have a soft spot for Saudi Arabia, but Dubai can go and do one.

I have a soft spot for Saudi Arabia

That's bait.

Saudi Arabia has a few insane vanity projects and a poor human rights record, but it manages to accomplish both its religious and human development goals. That's a hard problem to solve.

No, I genuinely like Salman bin Saud and think of all the gulf nations Saudi Arabia is the most on the "righteous path": not being too fundamentalist but also not going full hedonist like some of the other countries. Plus the fact that they control Mecca and Medina helps too.

He does seem to be drinking the Techbro Abundance Kool Aid a bit too hard and I'm skeptical he's going to be successful longterm. I do agree with you that I'd rather 'Arabs spend a lot of money trying to actually build productive things even if too ambitious' to the 'Whores' or 'Wahabbism' alternate routes on the tech tree, though.

What the fuck is even the point of these places?

According to international consensus, as codified by the United Nations (1 2):

  • Every people has the right to self-determination (free determination of political status and free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development).

  • The purpose of a country is to fulfill its people's right of self-determination.

  • More developed countries do not have the right to decide that a particular people is not sufficiently civilized to deserve the right of self-determination, or has failed to properly pursue economic, social, or cultural development.

Every people has the right to self-determination (free determination of political status and free pursuit of economic, social, and cultural development).

If anyone truly believed this, surely they'd conclude that the South should have been allowed to peacefully secede from the Union. I'm sure someone is going to pipe in with "but slavery", but wars of aggression to change economic and social models is directly against the third point (and if it weren't, we can talk about fascist Italy ending slavery in Ethiopia, or the British ending widow-burning in India).

I see roughly what the authors were intending to codify, but I don't think it can be done even-handedly, and in practice it's going to end up being a lot of "who, whom?" and unwritten assumptions about what counts as a "people" that privilege certain parties. Not even always unreasonably: we couldn't practically take every sovereign citizen at face value. And for the record, I think Southern secession was a bad idea for a bunch of reasons, and slavery abhorrent.

I'm not subject to rule by the UN, so I say fuck these places in particular. They can send a blue helmet to stand outside my house and shake their head disapprovingly if they feel like it.

The best thing that Trump is doing is destroying those international travesties. If we are lucky by the end of his term we may get to the point where "rule based order" is so damaged that even eager democrat president may be unable to salvage it.

Padme: And then we build a new rule-based order that actually functions as such rather than just being a marketing label, right?

Sure, nothing wrong with "might makes right" world order ... as you are 100% certain that you have the might, that you really wield the biggest club.

"Self-determination" is a concept that really could use some expounding here, since we are talking about absolute monarchies. Who sets the boundaries of the "self" here? You seem to think that Arabs under a dictatorship of Arabs are satisfactorily self-determining. If you are a Hindu Shudra in a Brahmin dictatorship, are you enjoying self-determination? What about a hypothetical Wakanda project of US census "black"s, where Ethiopians in the vein of Timnit Gebru rule over Haitians?

Unfortunately, the ICJ has not seen fit to issue an authoritative ruling on this issue. However, the opinions of Kosovo and Serbia on the topic may be of interest.

Kosovo:

While the exact contours of any right of self-determination have not been articulated by this Court, the authorities noted above may be read as identifying two key components that permit the exercise of the right: the existence of a "people"; and the demonstrated inability of that people to be protected within a particular State, given prior abuses and oppression by that State's government. The people of Kosovo are distinct, being a group of which 90 percent are Kosovo Albanians, who speak the Albanian language, and who mostly share a Muslim religious identity. The Security Council itself has referred to the "people of Kosovo". Further, the prior infliction of massive human rights abuses and crimes against humanity by the Serbian authorities upon the people of Kosovo, are well-known and well-documented, as demonstrated by the February 2009 ICTY Judgment in Milutinović et al., and have been condemned by the General Assembly, the Security Council, and many other international bodies. The continued denial by Serbia of representative government to Kosovo was recently demonstrated by the failure of Serbia to invite Kosovo-Albanian representatives to the drafting of the 2006 Constitution of Serbia, nor to give them a chance to express themselves upon it (only Kosovo Serbs were allowed to participate in the referendum). In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the people of Kosovo were entitled to the right of self-determination.

Serbia:

Kosovo was neither a mandated/trust territory nor an overseas European colonial territory in the UN sense, nor was it registered or recognised or ever even submitted for acceptance as a non-self-governing territory with the United Nations, nor did any international or regional body ever recognise it as such, nor was it subject to foreign occupation as determined or evidenced by relevant international organisations. Kosovo formed an integral part of the FRY (State Union of Serbia and Montenegro). It remains an integral part of Serbia, and as such the population of that territory were, and remain, part of the "people" of Serbia. Those persons forming part of a minority within the territory of Serbia, including Kosovo, are entitled to the protection of minority rights as laid down in Articles 14 and 75–81 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia 2006.

Kosovo, as a part of an internationally recognised independent State, is not a self-determination unit as that term has been understood in international law and practice. Consistent international recognition of the territorial integrity of the FRY (and thus of its continuator, the Republic of Serbia) by definition precludes acceptance of the right of self-determination as inhering in the inhabitants of the province of Kosovo.

Who decided who is "nation" deserving of self determination?

In practice, your ability to find great power generous uncle who supports your cause diplomatically/militarily decides the issue.

There is no supreme commission of linguistic experts that examines dialects spoken in Trashcanistan/Carbombistan border zone and scientifically chooses where the true border should be.

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