site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25896 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no one had a more destabilizing effect on the world in general, and the Middle East in particular than the United States.

I think there's a decent case to be made that Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi had an effect at least comparable to the United States in the Middle East since 2011, being the spark that ultimately deposed 4 governments in the region (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen), and indirectly kicked off regional wars (ISIS) in Iraq, Syria (ultimately deposing that regime as well), and Yemen. Longer term, several other countries have also seen major changes. Yeah, the US was involved in some of those peripherally (Libya, Yemen, likely political pressure on Egypt), but I hardly consider it central to those events.

Although I'm not an expert on the region and would be interested in hearing other opinions.

Given the crackdown of western governments against social media, when a few elections didn't go the way they wanted, I find it hard to believe that the role of the US in the Arab Spring was non-central, and it was all about some dude setting himself on fire.

Frankly, the very notion of "organic" mass movements is in dire need of evidence.

Why would the US organize protests against their allies?

To get local politics more on side. There was a story bout Trump looking into supporting the populist right-wing parties in Europe, or Europens helping the campaign against Trump, for example.

Also, during the era in question, liberalism was particularly high on it's own supply, and it seemed like the western elites literally believed the End of History thing, and thought they can turn Arabs into gay race communists overnight.

I find it hard to believe that the role of the US in the Arab Spring was non-central,

I see why it could look that way: at the time, it looked like a plausible hypothesis. But I'll also note that the deposed governments were a mix of traditional US/West enemies (Libya) and at least soft allies (Egypt, Yemen). Egypt, in particular, became much less Western-aligned during the tenure of the Muslim Brotherhood. Western relations with Syria had been improving prior to the kickoff of its civil war in 2011, then got worse quickly.

Middle eastern governments in 2011 were likely much worse at bullying social media companies than first world governments in 2020.

The companies were also probably not the same, in part because of the Arab Spring. IIRC around the time of ISIS Twitter was more libertarian about the whole thing but then were stuck on the horns of a dilemma. Do you let your platform be used to show beheaded Americans and propaganda that was actively radicalizing people? Do you shut down those accounts and kill possible intelligence sources? Their solution was more coordination with the government.

Once you cede that principle you're not going back.

Why crack down on social media if mass movements are not a threat?

Emphasis on "organic". Mass movements require coordination, and anyone who tried organizing something as simple as a book club will tell you how much inertia coordination typically needs to overcome.

I suppose an organic mass movement is not entirely impossible, but when we're talking about simultaneous uprisings spanning multiple countries, we're entering pissing on some and telling them it's raining territory. Even with the recent protests in Iran, you could literally see the blob prepping for the op.

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