site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11968 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.

As a Republican who was broadly onboard with toppling Iran well before the most recent flare up, I would like to offer an alternate narrative to the one about Trump is a Joe-Biden-esqe meat puppet being controlled by a zionist cabal, that seems to be the popular consensus here.

First off what does winning look like, in the eyes of team Trump?

Ideally, Iran makes a credible and verifiable commitment to dismantling their nuclear weapons program and stop supplying arms to HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Russian Federation, Et Al. Less Ideally, we turn them into a failed state that wouldn't be able to muster up a nuclear weapons program even if they wanted one. If the choice is between reducing Iran to Afghanistan-esque hodge-podge of pre-industrial warring tribes and giving the IRGC access to nuclear missiles we choose to turn Iran into another Afghanistan.

Importantly we are not going to do the Clinton or Obama thing where we give them a whole bunch of cash and trade concessions in exchange for a pinky-promise not to act up again and then sit on our thumbs when they renege on those promises 6-monthes later. While I'm not privy to the specifics my guess is that the plan is to hold Kharg Island hostage to force Iranian compliance.

How is this in American interests? I think it is just as valid to ask as how is it not?

While there is something of an isolationist streak present in the online right the prevailing attitude amongst the wider GOP is that if the US is going to occupy the role of hegemon we must play the role.

First, I think it needs to be pointed out that, with the Biden-era environmental limits removed the US is once again a net petroleum exporter and the US economy is much better situated to weather possible energy-trade disruptions than say China is.

As the global hegemon, international trade flows freely (and for the most part safely) largely thanks to guarantees that are enforced by the US Navy. If the US is the world's cop, Iran is not some innocent brown kid who got shot for no reason, they're the habitual bad actor with dozens of prior complaints and arrests.

From my perspective democrats' attitude towards the Iranian regime seems to echo their attitudes towards illegal immigration, violent crime. If you ask them if they want violent schizophrenics on the train they'll answer "no", but at the same time they will vehemently oppose anyone who looks like they might try to stop violent schizophrenics from stabbing people on trains. They seem to view the occasional train stabbing or ballistic missile attack as simply the price of doing business.

If the US is the world's cop, Iran is not some innocent brown kid who got shot for no reason, they're the habitual bad actor with dozens of prior complaints and arrests.

What's the worst three things they have done in the past 15 years? I don't follow the region closely. But it generally seems to me that the Iranian regime has moderated with its age and is just a normal country. A country with a lousy government that does not like the U.S., sure, but that's not a reason to start a war. Iran isn't some kind of irrational chaotic evil as some neocons claim. As I have heard, Iran actually cooperated with the U.S. in fighting ISIS. And when the U.S. or Israel has occasionally bombed Iran, Iran has mostly responded by politely alerting us prior to targetting and hit only empty buildings. Up until this attack, they did not close the straits of Hormuz, blow up crucial oil facilities, bomb Israeli civilians, etc. etc. What makes Iran so much of a rogue nation, worse than, say, Pakistan or Israel?

There is no real 'worst' in the sense of any moral transgression. For every single alleged Iranian misdeed there is a clear analog and reason as to why.

As an example: Iran funds proxies in the region as a continuation of the Iraq-Iran war. Where the US and other states provided direct support to Iraq so it could invade Iran. This is why there are no major 'terror' attacks by alleged Iran funded proxies prior to that invasion.

To put things into context, in total, the US has, according to AI, lost less than 1000 men to alleged Iran proxy attacks in the middle east. In contrast, the Iraq-Iran war killed at least 180 thousand Iranians. That's only counting the war and not the many thousands that die because of other US backed wars, strikes and their continued support for Israel, which does the same.

But none of this is ever mentioned by any anti-Iran advocates.

It's comical, really. The worst Iranian transgressions interventionists can point towards are all the direct consequence of their prior failed interventions.

Or as one person put it:

Islamic terrorist attacks are just blowback from America’s GWOT, which was just blowback from 9/11, which was just blowback from America supporting Israel, which was just blowback from the Ottomans fighting against America and Britain in WW1, which was just blowback from Britain seizing Egypt and supporting Greek freedom from the Ottomans, which was just blowback from the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and hundreds of years of oppression, which was just blowback from the Crusades, which were just blowback from the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, which was just blowback from the Byzantine Empire’s expansion into Syria under the Macedonian dynasty, which was just blowback from the Arab conquest of Byzantine Syria and Egypt and North Africa and repeated siege attempts against Constantinople, which was just blowback from the Byzantines no longer paying Arab tribes to defend the frontier against Persia, which was just blowback from an extended Persian invasion of the Byzantine Empire, which was just blowback from 700 years of warfare between Rome and Persia, which was just blowback from Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia, which was just blowback from Darius and Xerxes’ invasions of Greece, which was just blowback from Athens supporting the Ionian revolts against the Persian Empire, which was just blowback from Cyrus the Great conquering the Ionian Greeks of Anatolia, but before that everybody in history probably got along.

I appreciate the sentiment, but that sort of 'tracing back the blame' game, whilst fitting in a sense, isn't what's going on here. It's not about finding ultimate moral culpability via locating the human that cast the first stone. It's about judging the actions of Iran as being reasonable or not. Sure, some historical context is required, but if a nations motivations to attack are tracing themselves back a thousand year or two, I wouldn't call them reasonable.

From a geopolitical standpoint, when people ask why we need to bomb Iran and the reason given is that, effectively, Iranians are lunatics that fund terrorists as a hobby and block trade for sport... Some context is warranted. Context that the 'bomb Iran' crowd somehow never mentions despite being obviously relevant.

I mean, Iran did take over the US Embassy and hold Americans hostage November 4, 1979, right before the Iraq-Iran war which kicked off in 1980. It seems like there is evidence the current Iranian Regime considered the US their enemy before the Iraq-Iran war, and also perhaps some US participation in the Iraq-Iran war wasn't just shits and giggles but a response to actual grievances, such as 52 active hostages.

And this also happened decades ago, almost half a century ago, so either we're going back blow by blow or we aren't. At some point nations have to look at the world as it is now and make decisions based on what they think is best for the future, not past grievances. Iran was choosing a future where they have nuclear weapons that can reach Europe and the Continental US and a future where they are destabilizing their neighbors, arming terrorists and harming international shipping. And the US is trying to choose a future where Iran doesn't get to do those things. War is not the criminal justice system. Guilt does not need to be proven. It's divorce court and someone's going to get the kids and the house and the other is going to pay child support.

Even ignoring that the hostage crisis was because the US protected the Shah (whom they imposed on Iran) when Iranians wanted him tried, the idea that 52 hostages means that you can fund 50,000 Iranian casualties from chemical attacks is insane. Why do pro-Israelis seem to have no notion of proportionality? US protects Shah from revolution -> 50 hostages -> US supports Iraq inflicting 50,000 casualties on Iran through chemical weapons even as Iran petitions the international community to compel them to stop. Like what are we even doing here. And Iraq invaded Iran! It wasn’t even a defensive use of chemical weapons.

If I wanted a country to never again take my citizens as hostages I would've killed even more. That's what wanting someone to never fuck with you and yours means. Not essays or vibes.

So you’re saying that the Iranians, in their desire to deter America from ever again “fucking with them”, should have done a lot more than what they did? What do you think they should have done instead?

More comments

As long as you're in a position of unassailable superiority, and fine with being feared and hated, alright. Just make sure that never changes.

As long as you don't mind looking like an absolute psychopath, sure. I don't believe that within America, 'Hanson Jr. raped my daughter so I slaughtered every child at his school with an AK' is considered appropriate. The Hatsons Hatfields and the McCoys were jokes even in their own time, not role models.

More comments

Am I pro-Israel? Wasn't Israel on the side of Iran during the Iraq-Iran war?

What's the worst three things they have done in the past 15 years?

Just off the top of my head:

Threatening global shipping lanes by funding and supplying the Houthis (one of their proxies) which caused major disruption to ship traffic in the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal.

Attacking Saudi oil infrastructure (again via their proxy, the Houthis).

Supplying IEDs and shaped charges to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill American troops.

As I have heard, Iran actually cooperated with the U.S. in fighting ISIS.

Yeah, no surprise there. ISIS was an overwhelmingly Sunni group, that often explicitly targeted Shiite Muslims. Iran is majority Shiite.

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