site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4405 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some various thoughts about the whole thing with Iran. My apologies if much of this was already discussed before by others in previous Culture War threads.

  1. If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.
  2. Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.
  3. Iranian oil also got its sanctions lifted. This reminds me of how in a different war, the US government was fighting producers of products that US citizens enjoy. I am of the opinion this is another tally on the board for why the war preparation was incompetent.
  4. Talking about this being a war, it's actually a military operation. Not only does it reminds you of another military operation, this story once again underline the absolute weaksauce cowardliness of the US legislative branch in allowing this to happen. But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.
  5. Will the American people forget about Epstein?
  6. Aside from the various prices of things going up, we must be reminded that this year the US (and its neighbors actually) is hosting the World Cup! How will this World Cup be remembered? Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs? Game tickets are expensive as heck, a trip to America is expensive as heck, now everything will be even more expensive as heck as well!
  7. Five weeks ago, a ground war with Iran is unthinkable by the American people. Since then, that opinion has clearly changed. Is this what Chomsky calls "Manufactured Consent"? I've never read the book, and being from a communist country, my consent wasn't really needed either so I am unfamiliar with the process of it all.
  8. I think America will try to take one or a few islands.
  9. The Venezuela op was a masterclass. What conditions would allow Trump to declare victory? Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?

Talking about this being a war, it's actually a military operation. Not only does it reminds you of another military operation, this story once again underline the absolute weaksauce cowardliness of the US legislative branch in allowing this to happen. But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.

It is actually stupider and more evil than just "weaksauce cowardliness". The democrats all want war with Iran because they're compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex, and war with Iran serves both of those interests (or at least those interests seem to think that - who knows what will happen in the end). On the other hand, they know that their base absolutely despises the war with Iran and will refuse to vote for people who support it. That's why they're simply doing nothing and pretending that their hands are tied - because it allows them to get what they want (incredibly expensive bombs paid for by the US taxpayer blowing up schoolchildren who are in the way of Greater Israel) without having to damage their electoral support by actively supporting it.

It's more that they're worried that one of two things will happen:

-- The Special Military Operation will work, and they'll look like naysayers

-- Iran will do something so horrible that you don't want to look like you were defending them

I mean if the IRGC sets off a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, that actually makes the war a worse idea than when it was started, but it makes anything that sounds like sympathy for Iran look bad.

I based my claim on an article which is now paywalled and hence unable to be used as a source which claimed these were the actual motivations in question. But that said...

The Special Military Operation will work, and they'll look like naysayers

I highly doubt this will happen.

Iran will do something so horrible that you don't want to look like you were defending them

Yea, just imagine how awful it would be if they did something terrible like blow up a school full of young girls or destroyed a major petroleum stockpile in a populated residential area, causing immense ecological damage and health consequences for people forced to breathe in black rain! Who could possibly defend monsters that would commit such atrocities?

I mean if the IRGC sets off a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, that actually makes the war a worse idea than when it was started

Speak for yourself - Tel Aviv getting blown up is one of the few positives to emerge from this conflict in my view.

I highly doubt this will happen.

I mean me too but I do think it entered the head of the average Democratic senator that he didn't want to be on the wrong side of this, especially when people are holding up Venezuela as some kind of massive success story.

Who could possibly defend monsters that would commit such atrocities?

It's different when we do it. Hell, even just Iran causing mass military casualties will qualify. Say, by sinking an aircraft carrier, or destroying a landing craft full of marines on live video feed. Enough flag draped coffins will lead to calls for revenge and redoubling, "finish the job so my child didn't die in vain" as Pete Hegseth claims a parent told him but the parents that could be reached for comment deny.

Congresscritters are cowards with their fingers in the wind, not principled anti-war activists.

This war is too unpopular for a large casualty event to lead to doubling down and calls for revenge to work. It's far more likely that a large casualty event ends the political will to continue the war at all.

The warstate and other scumbags will definitely try to double down and call for revenge, but it's been a long time since foreign wars killing American solders were responded to by the average American with revenge. Instead they've been responded to with a question, "Why the hell are we still there?"

And I think the Trump Admin and the war state thinks this too which is why they've been so casualty averse so far. But the current thing isn't working, it's leading to catastrophe, and time is running out to avoid worldwide economic crisis, so they will probably take another step up the risk ladder.

I continue to be skeptical of the thesis that has no balls and will give up if harmed. The Ukraine war has made me permanently skeptical of the idea, which seemed like the perfect example of a population of a fake country with a corrupt government that nonetheless is willing to go to the mattresses.

Ukrainians think their war is existential

Americans do not think a war most of them cannot point to on a map on the other side of the world is existential

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