site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26385 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 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.

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

The IRGC is operating on the theory that the gulf is cowardly and the USA has ADHD. They may yet be proven right, but their target selection reflects a preference for efficient soft targets not precise political punishment.

The US and Israel are using the same standards. See the US bombing Iraq and the Israelis bombing Lebanon. The Israelis are hitting way more than just Hezbollah and the US are bombing allied but currently mostly uninvolved militia.

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

Laos and Cambodia were bombed by the US for similar reasons no?

Odd standard, US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

It's the standard standard since time immemorial. Allowing military use of your territory is incompatible with neutrality.

The IRGC is operating on the theory that the gulf is cowardly and the USA has ADHD.

If you've seen a lot of Arab societies in military conflicts, military experts have pointed that out. Saudi Arabia remains one of the classic cases of the dysfunctional social issues they face when coordinating and launching military activities. It's not a thesis that hasn't been heavily assailed over time, there was a time around World War 2 when military experts abroad made similar criticisms of American military doctrine.

Americans love war but they have never understood it. Americans got their ass stomped pretty hard by the Nazis at Kasserine Pass and it ran throughout the duration of the entire war. All they really had were numbers and industrial production to overwhelm the axis, but zero in the strategy department. It was the Soviets that won WW2, not the Americans. We were the ones who tasked them with tying down and defeating the greatest army in the world at that time, which the Wehrmacht certainly was. But a lot of it still generalizes.

I'm less interested in the military effectiveness of the gulf countries than in the reaction of their civilian population to Iranian bombings in their cities. It seems to me that every campaign that I've seen begin with the assumption "the populace is docile, cowardly, Aristotelian natural slaves who will surrender when attacked" it hasn't worked out that way. Most recently, Ukraine was assumed by essentially every intelligent observer (including essentially all major governments and intelligence agencies) to be a fake country with a population uninterested in dying for a corrupt elite. That has proven untrue, to the sorrow of millions.

I don't know that the Gulf Arabs can convert popular anger into effective military action against Iran, but I'm unsure that the theory they will cower and sue for peace is a good one for Iran to set as their win condition. In the same way that I would caution against building a win condition into USA war planning that the Iranians will sue for peace as a result of aerial bombing.

It seems to me that every campaign that I've seen begin with the assumption "the populace is docile, cowardly, Aristotelian natural slaves who will surrender when attacked" it hasn't worked out that way.

Were you around for the wars in Iraq?

Yes. The USA failed to pacify the population sustainably until, roughly, 2017 when ISIS lost most of its territory there.

I would not say that was how Dubya and Rumsfeld drew it up.

ISIS and Saddam were separate enemies, and had separate propensities to surrender. It is still true that Saddam's forces surrendered a lot. (And the populace didn't really support either of them much.)

The populace of Iraq didn't mostly refuse to resist the Americans because they were docile and cowardly natural slaves, though; they refused to resist because Saddam sucked so much they preferred the Devil they didn't know. I do not believe the same is true for Iran, and it certainly isn't true for the Gulf states.

US military bases open your entire country to bombing.

What's odd about that standard? Would the US government not bomb all sorts of targets in a country that has a government that allows Iranian military forces to operate on its soil, even targets that are not actually Iranian military? It absolutely would, after all the US has spent two decades considering it standard to bomb any target in almost any country in the Middle East at any time. And that's not even when the US government was engaged in an existential war, as Iran's government is now.

The preference for efficient soft targets, to the extent that one exists, is probably largely caused by the inaccuracy of Iran's weapons. If they had US/Israel-tier military technology, they would have preferred to use it to kill Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and other enemy elites rather than to waste it on blowing up random apartment buildings.

The preference for efficient soft targets, to the extent that one exists, is probably largely caused by the inaccuracy of Iran's weapons. If they had US/Israel-tier military technology, they would have preferred to use it to kill Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and other enemy elites rather than to waste it on blowing up random apartment buildings.

I'm skeptical. What's your evidence for this claim?

That they're not completely insane. They have very different values than I do, and they are in many ways irrational, but their track record of staying in power for decades shows that they are clearly rational enough to understand that there are much better ways to use limited and expensive missiles (even US missiles are not infinite in number) than to blow up random apartment buildings. They'd love to kill Netanyahu, so I'm sure they would try to target him unless they were worried that this would trigger nuclear retaliation (a reasonable concern). After Netanyahu there are all sorts of other targets in Israel that make more sense to attack than random apartment buildings.

It's not that I think they wouldn't deliberately kill Israeli and Saudi civilians. Sure they would. But they could easily think of more impressive and consequential targets.

It's not that I think they wouldn't deliberately kill Israeli and Saudi civilians. Sure they would. But they could easily think of more impressive and consequential targets.

Well maybe I misunderstood you. What's a "soft target" to you?

Anything that is relatively easy to hit, whether because it does not require accurate weapons or because it is not well defended.

For Iran, Netanyahu is a very hard target. Civilian apartment buildings in a minor town in the UAE is a relatively soft target.

Anything that is relatively easy to hit, whether because it does not require accurate weapons or because it is not well defended.

Would you say that an international airport, for example Ben Gurion airport is a soft target?

Same question about civilian passenger aircraft.

In theory, yes for any decent military. With Iran's limited military capabilities and its adversaries' elite military capabilities including in the field of air defense, probably not.

In theory, yes for any decent military. With Iran's limited military capabilities and its adversaries' elite military capabilities including in the field of air defense, probably not

Ok, just to be clear, in your view, civilian airports such as TLV and DXB are NOT soft targets for Iran, but residential apartment buildings in Tel Aviv or Dubai are soft targets for Iran. Do I understand correctly?

More comments

Basic logic? Assuming geopolitical actors are largely rational?

Basic logic?

What's the logic?

Assuming geopolitical actors are largely rational?

How would it be irrational for Iran to target civilians if it had the option of (1) targeting both civilian and military targets; or (2) targeting military options only.

The logic is that if you're in a war, you'd like to win it.

Wars are won roughly 100% of the time by inflicting military and strategic damage to the enemy's ability to wage war.

Terror bombing is now rapidly approaching 100 years of "not fucking working" and to engage in it is retarded.

How would it be irrational for Iran to target civilians if it had the option of (1) targeting both civilian and military targets; or (2) targeting military options only.

Because you have a limited number of munitions and you don't increase your chances of winning a war by doing 1.

Terror bombing is now rapidly approaching 100 years of "not fucking working" and to engage in it is retarded.

Well, assuming that's true for the sake of argument, the fact is that there has been quite a lot of terror bombing in recent history. Which means that "[a]ssuming geopolitical actors are largely rational" is a bad assumption.

Well, assuming that's true for the sake of argument

I can go full autism on this if you like

Which means that "[a]ssuming geopolitical actors are largely rational" is a bad assumption.

It's extremely load bearing lol, and clearly a mixed bet. I was so, so loud in 2022 that Putin wouldn't invade because it would be a nightmare and absolutely not worth it.

I was right, it's a nightmare and not worth it. I was wrong, because he invaded anyway.

I can go full autism on this if you like

Please feel free to.

I was right, it's a nightmare and not worth it. I was wrong, because he invaded anyway.

I don't know enough about the situation to comment on this one way or another, however I will point out that the interests of Russia are not necessarily the same as the interests of Putin. When you say that "it's a nightmare and not worth it," are you talking about Russia or Putin? From Putin's perspective, it may very well be worth it to mire his country, alienate the world, and deplete his country's resources.

In fact, the same argument could be made about terrorism. From the perspective of a Hamas leader, sitting in some safe house in Qatar, it might very well be (or at least seem) worth it to launch terrorist attacks against Israel.

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