site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12581 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.

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?

It's up to them to decide what they should have done. I do not care, especially since you haven't specified what kind of fucking preceded Iran taking hostages.

My apologies for not specifying the 13,000 pound elephant with a trunk the size of an NBA player reverberating the entire room with its trumpeting. Foreign Affairs 1979:

Americans must recognize two facts gov­erning the situation in Iran. One is the breadth of support for the Ayatollah Ruhol­lah Khomeini among politically sophisti­cated intellectuals as well as millions of urban and rural Iranians who never before partici­pated in the political process. The other is the complete absence among these same peo­ple of loyalty for Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who is regarded as a traitor, a crea­tion of American and British imperialism. In their view, the shah’s regime reflected American interests as faithfully as Vidkun Quisling’s puppet government in Norway reflected the interests of Nazi Germany in World War II. The shah’s defense program, his industrial and economic transactions, and his oil policy were all considered by most Iranians to be faithful executions of American instructions. Ultimately, the United States was blamed for the thousands killed during the last year by the Iranian army, which was trained, equipped, and seemingly controlled by Washington. Virtually every wall in Iran carried a slogan demanding the death of the "American shah."

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.

It sounds like you don't understand war or even the concept of violence. It's not about what we "look like" as if reality is parsed through the feminine consensus mechanism. This is war. You broke one of our most sacred taboos so now we are going to kill you. Anything beneath that is just playacting. And if you're not willing to go to kill* for what you believe in then you don't really believe in it.

* Or die. True pacifism is the other side of this coin.

Oh, please. Go and level North Korea if you're so worried about your taboos, followed by India, Israel and Pakistan. This is about 'we can and we felt like it and hey, it worked in Venezuela'. If it were actually a sacred do-or-die moment where the correct action was obvious, everybody would be on board.

The fact that America is increasingly willing to kill for a chocolate bar, with a significant contingent of Americans grinning and making finger-guns the whole way, is why the collective response of the rest of the world has been to treat you like a drunk who barged onto the subway with a gun on his hip muttering 'bang, bang' when he looks at people.

My comment about "taboos" was directed at the hostage crisis, which is one of the most egregious acts of terror ever committed against America and her people. The hostage crisis merits extreme violence, because a state that can not even respect embassies is already gone rogue. And if we respond with weakness that only invites more violence. That's what war is.

The fact that America is increasingly willing to kill for a chocolate bar,

This bears no resemblance even remotely to anything under discussion. In 2026 America has toppled a violent narco state in Venezuela, bombed a rogue theocratic regime in Iran, and threatened the kleptocratic regime of Cuba. "Kill for a chocolate bar"? I really wonder what kind of news they print in Europe. If you can't even imagine American motivations as rational I do think this is analogous to TDS, because it's not hard actually to understand what America wants or why. The only incident I can think of that even vaguely resembles your remark is the Greenland incident, which as I argued in another post is (in part) a serious overreaction on the parts of the Europeans. We could argue about that too some more I suppose, but it really doesn't bode well if a priori America is to be treated as some kind of crazy cokehead cowboy psycho. (While the good rational Europeans are sending bombs to Greenlandic runways and cheering for Iran to keep the Straits of Hormuz closed.)

If it were actually a sacred do-or-die moment where the correct action was obvious, everybody would be on board.

See what I mean? The fact that you disagree is treated as proof that you were right to disagree.

More comments

Hatfields, I believe.

Thanks. I liked Tom Sawyer a lot better than Huckleberry Finn, and it shows. Tbh I never got the hang of Twain in general, though. Good with a zinger but just too grim and cynical to enjoy spending time with.

There is a very beautiful moment in the otherwise execrable Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court where the King comforts a leprosy victim, but apart from that I can't say I've ever enjoyed his oeuvre.

Please explain how this comment chain lead to Mark Twain.

More comments

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

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