site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   18002 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.

Devereaux is an interesting thinker on ancient history. On modern military matters, he's useless. Where Trump is involved, actively anti-intelligent. Put him with Dan Carlin, if you're looking for another historian eaten by the TDS.

Personally, I can't make heads nor tails of the Iran operation, and I doubt anyone else is doing much better. We'll find out in a year or ten whether it was a success.

Do you have to be deranged to make anti-Trump claims? Sometimes the guy makes bad choices.

There was a time when ordering a new war in the Middle East, and hold the exit strategy, was one of those obviously bad decisions. People joked about it. Nothing I’ve seen from this iteration has changed that calculus.

No, but Devereaux is a long time Trump doomer.

He might even be right this time, but it would only be by chance.

Personally, I can't make heads nor tails of the Iran operation, and I doubt anyone else is doing much better.

I would wager a guess that this includes the Trump administration.

For the most part, war is not 5d chess, where apparent blunders can be actually brilliant strategy.

I doubt that Hegseth and Trump were rubbing their hands when Iran closed the Strait. "So they have fallen into our trap, just as predicted. Now let's do press conferences where we look like fools to foster their beliefs that their strategy is working. They will never realize that we have learned of a Babylonian prophecy that whoever closes the Strait will have their country devoured by the Elder Gods after a fortnight."

A more sanewashed idea than Elder Gods:

Closing the Strait hurts America's allies more than it hurts Americans. If we look like we're not doing much about it, the allies are incentivized to build up their navies again and protect their own damn shipping lanes. Anything that makes Europe/Australia look at the world through more realistic lenses than some rose-colored End of History glasses is a win for sanity everywhere.

Can you see Trump signing on to a strategy like that? Looking ineffective/losing to encourage others to step up? Because I can’t. It’s completely against his brand.

I find it much more likely that he gambled on an in-and-out, five-day adventure. Blow up their assets, decapitate the leadership, get an easy peace deal. Foot in the door.

JD Vance would sign up for embarrassing Europe.

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