site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8199 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.

I don't consider myself qualified to argue the war on the merits, because I honestly don't know what's gone on behind closed doors, or even what the point of it really is. But I will ask you this.

If Trump had run on starting a war with Iran, would he have won the election?

I guess we'll never know. But I really, really doubt it. Instead, he claimed to be against exactly this kind of war. It's hard to look at this as anything but an overt betrayal of the people who elected him. At least when Bush started the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, there was a 9/11 standing between that and his campaign. You could understand why his position changed. (And I'm hardly defending Bush for this, the result was disastrous anyway)

There's nothing so visible here. He never made a case for this crap to the voters.

This had better turn out really, unbelievably, unexpectedly well or I don't see how this is defensible, except maybe in a really cynical realpolitik way, but even that will take a long time to shake out.

If Trump had run on starting a war with Iran, would he have won the election?

I think a lot depends on what you think "this kind of war" is, as I said down thread I think a lot of people here misunderstand what exactly a lot of republicans (and more moderate Democrats) found objectionable about the establishment's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

what exactly a lot of republicans (and more moderate Democrats) found objectionable about the establishment's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

That he failed.

If we're being honest.

If Trump can deliver a clear success, one so clear that no one can whine about media bias, Americans will accept it, regardless of the morality. Changing Supreme Leaders and another inconclusive war in Lebanon isn't going to count for much.

You forget the lying about WMDs.

That's the bigger deal because that's what makes it so hard to motivate a war with Iran.

They had one blank cheque for that and they blew it on Saddam.

This is painful for me to admit, because I'm at my emotional core an American patriot, but I don't really think Americans would have cared about that all that much if we had clearly succeeded in our goals.

Smaller, successful regime change actions in Latin America have generally been well received, and the reasons for doing so have rarely been well communicated and reasoned.

I think a lot depends on what you think "this kind of war" is,

Very much this. The shit they had guys like JTarrou doing in Iraq, the room to room sweeping with a random mix of civilians, fighters, and suicide bombers, where they had to pretend that everyone they met was friendly until they were being bombed or shot at? With RoE that seem almost designed to drive people insane or get them killed? Driven by the delusional belief that the only thing separating Uday Hussein from Will Stancil was a bit of pocket change and a lecture on queer puppet shows?

Yeah, the politicians calling for that can get fragged.

Bombing assholes into the Stone Age?

Talking about exactly that in the context of specifically Iran is actually where the we are gonna do things to you that have never been done before line comes from.

The current actions are perhaps on the upper side of expectations, but Trump was never a dove. He just isn't a medal-farming, nation-building retard.

So you think if trump ran on "I'm going to bomb Iran into the stone age, which will result not only in a lot of them dying for (currently) 0 gain, but will ultimately heavily disrupt international trade in a way that drives up gas and other prices" , you think that would be a winning platform?

No, nobody in America ever likes any policy whatsoever if you phrase it negatively and prompt them with only the downsides.

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