site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6352 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced today he was resigning over the war in Iran.

President Trump,

After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Directory of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today.

I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.

....

Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that you should strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make that mistake again.

What's most significant is that Kent is not a Marjorie Taylor-Green or a Thomas Massie. Kent served in the U.S Special Forces and in eleven combat tours, mostly Iraq, and then retired an became a paramilitary officer with the CIA. His wife was killed in Syria. Kent had a very public feud with the Nick Fuentes faction of America First which was started by Kent's public denunciation of Fuentes.

Kent was clearly amenable to an aspirational "middle ground" with respect to the tenuous America First/Israel Alliance, which is why he was targeted by the Groypers in the first place. Nobody can accuse him of hiding some deep-seeded Jew hatred because of his long and recent history of supporting Israel, this seems to be a genuine defection. This defection is highly significant and the first time a high-ranking official has described any of these conflicts in these terms.

There may be more shoes to drop/more resignations. My own criticism of Kent's resignation is that he tries to absolve Trump of blame, when Trump is neck-deep in all of this.

This resignation comes as the same day the Guardian reports that a UK security adviser present at US-Iran talks believed a deal was within reach immediately before the US/Israeli strikes on Iran.

Iran had also made an offer of what the mediators described as an economic bonanza, with the US being given the chance to participate in a future civil nuclear programme.

In return, nearly 80% of the economic sanctions on Iran would have been lifted, including assets frozen in Qatar, a demand Iran made in the 2025 talks.

The Oman mediator believed the offer of zero stockpiling of highly enriched uranium was a breakthrough that meant an agreement was within reach.

Accounts differ on whether Kushner left the talks giving the impression Trump would welcome what had been agreed, or that the US negotiators knew it would take something massive to persuade Trump that war was not the best option.

One diplomat with knowledge of the talks said: “We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that dragged a president into a war he wants to get out of.”

The Guardian’s report that Powell was in the room during the talks was cited in parliament on Tuesday by Liz Saville Roberts, an MP for the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru party, during an update by Britain’s foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper.

“It appears diplomatic options were still viable and there was no evidence of an imminent missile threat to Europe or of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Saville Roberts told Cooper.

“Does she therefore believe a negotiated path between Iran and the US was still possible at that time and, if so, surely that means that the initial US and Israeli strikes were premature and illegal?”

Cooper responded: “The UK did provide support for negotiations and diplomatic processes around the nuclear discussions.

“We did think that was an important track and we did want it to continue. That is one of the reasons for the position we took on the initial US strikes that took place.”

Trump of course immediately goes to his classic method of "just insult anyone who disagrees with you on anything" https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/2033939188064702746

“I always thought he was weak on security.”

Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.

Kent goes above and beyond trying to paint over it being the president's own choices and he still gets treated this way, cause of course.

We regarded Witkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets

Huh what interesting names to be Israeli assets, crazy coincidence I suppose. I wonder if Witkoff was wearing the pager he was apparently given by Mossad during these discussions with Trump

Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.

Isn't this what Trump and Trump supporters actually want you to think though – that Trump is a lying bullshitter who will dunk on you if you upset him, regardless of the truth/falsity/merits of the case? That way he can build a coalition that maintains loyalty and enables him to use his bully pulpit to ram things through in a way others could not, because they are afraid to oppose him. That is how his whole operation works. If he didn't lie and bullshit, it would be possible for his opponents to use reason and evidence to combat his insults, which would defang them significantly. They have to be regarded as insult theatre, not grounded in reality, to act as effective in/out-group markers.

I would have thought that MAGA supporters would at least tacitly accept this characterisation, though I confess they sometimes surprise me.

I disagree about characterizing it as lying, but yeah, the simple statement that his insults don't really mean much, and are more reflective of whether he perceived their target as loyal or disloyal than of their actual merits, is uncontroversial.

Kent goes above and beyond trying to paint over it being the president's own choices and he still gets treated this way, cause of course.

Yes because that's how that works. What is Trump supposed to say, "Maybe Kent has a point maybe I have been duped and lied to?" Don't be ridiculous. Trump's criticism is extremely mild here, which is about what you deserve when you leave with a big dramatic announcement while at least not criticizing the boss in harsh terms. But what exactly did you expect? Kent could have left quietly, he didn't have to put out a big statement saying, Donald Trump made a huge mistake, let's consume a news cycle with a high-profile resignation about how Donald Trump made a huge mistake. You resign in situations like this for your own sense of integrity and maybe the hope that this stores up goodwill for some other political endeavor in the future. That's all priced in to what it means to resign for reasons of conscience. If anything "he was weak on security" is about on the same level as "Trump was duped" -- which is to say this is not so far an escalation on Trump's part and this is just how men disagree with each other.

How about "Kent is allowed to have his disagreements, but I believe he is wrong here" instead of saying that Kent is so terrible at the job Trump nominated him for that it was always known, even before the nomination. There are a lot of ways to part in business and government without being an asshole are there not?

This isn't a dichotomy between "say nothing" or "insult your former employee". Kent was respectful and in return he gets trash talked and smeared.

Quite obviously Trump is a total asshole though so he is hardly going to respond in the way that you or I would prefer. It's not unreasonable to criticise him on these grounds, but to criticise him for lying, bullying, being an asshole, believing in conspiracy theory, not being long-term, etc etc is simply going to be water off a duck's back to his supporters because those traits are his entire thing.`

The only way to get through is to show that he is weak.

Trump is in full bullshitting mode, lying and contradicting himself every other sentence. Yesterday he said he was preparing to announce a grand naval Coalition to re-open the Straits, today he says nobody is coming and he doesn't need them. Yesterday he said he talked to a former President who disclosed to Trump that the president regretted not attacking Iran like Trump did. A claim that was promptly disputed by every single living President. Most likely he was talking to AI George Washington, who happened to completely agree with Glenn Beck's support for attacking Iran.

Yesterday he said he talked to a former President who disclosed to Trump that the president regretted not attacking Iran like Trump did. A claim that was promptly disputed by every single living President.

This is just "he said she said". None of the presidents even denied it as such, it was just statements from their aides. Do you feel even a little dishonest characterizing this in the maximally negative way while yourself complaining about bullshit and lies?

I kind of assumed it wasn't a president of the USA.

Funniest option is if he was talking about Maduro.

They should really watch the WBC final togehter.

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