site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16480 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.

I’m going to level with you on my sense of this. I think Ukraine and Iran are both opening shots of a soon to be much much bigger war. The same characters are involved in all of them — USA and somewhat European powers, and Russia, China, and Iran. The goal is more or less to reduce capacity for the RCI bloc to project power. So far, you are correct that it’s a loss, but I don’t think it will stay that way. Keep in mind that most conflicts go on for years so knowing how it’s going in two weeks is impossible.

I do think the war is necessary in the sense that unless the world understands that when we threaten, we not only mean it, but will destroy things, and remove leaders, then it creates the idea in most states heads that we are paper tigers. We either prove that we can and will back up our will with force, or we end up having to fight more often because the rogue states are not afraid to challenge us or attack our Allie’s. If Trump has done one thing for American military, it’s that because he’s not afraid to use the military, people understand that it’s a real fighting force, and that if you mess with us, you’ll be hurt.

The goal is more or less to reduce capacity for the RCI bloc to project power. So far, you are correct that it’s a loss, but I don’t think it will stay that way.

"You see, this war isn't a loss because it's a prelude to WW3 and thus a nuclear apocalypse, so stay tuned for the human race to lose collectively! If we all lose, no one does."

China,

Where is China involved in any of this? I can see where you draw an Iran-Russia alliance, and China lurks in the background, but they haven't done anything to help Iran or Russia, and to a first guess their purposes are best served by Iran losing quickly and Russia remaining isolated and weakened.

The goal is more or less to reduce capacity for the RCI bloc to project power.

Since the "axis of resistance" bloc does not seem to be in any way real (excepting Russian-North Korean friendship and brotherhood), this mission had been already accomplished.

Keep in mind that most conflicts go on for years so knowing how it’s going in two weeks is impossible.

I don't think this is quite true, at least if we're talking about active, open conflicts and thinking in the domain of interstate conflicts. Civil wars tend to drag out much longer. Some example data here. In Table 1, all four types of termination criteria for interstate conflicts had a median duration of a year or less. I'd seen graphs somewhere in the past, but can't easily find them. All of the means are definitely higher than the medians, and I recall the distributions being pretty skewed.

Of course, if you're thinking in terms of geopolitical 'conflict' that is not active hostilities, that's much harder to measure.

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