site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26591 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is an assumption here, that if the EU hurts more than the US from this, then the US "wins". I would think, that if both sides suffer otherwise avoidable losses without directly gaining anything in return (the idea that the EU would become more aligned with America from this is uncertain to say the least), then both have lost. The populations of both are worse off than they otherwise would have been, and their standing relative to other powers (Russia and China) has weakened considerably. And this is assuming there are sides to begin with. The very notion assumes an adversarial relationship between the EU and the US. Something that has largely not been the case before Trump.

Precisely. Personally, reading this comment makes me want to ally with China. "Ha! I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!" is not the kind of relationship with my hegemon that I want.

We are not burning your house down, but possibly we aren't going to put out the fire out of deference to you any more.

we aren't going to put out the fire out of deference to you any more.

In this metaphor America started the fire against literally everyone else's (well, except bibi) wishes though

So it's not like the fire happened spontaneously and Europe is coming to America "once again" to ask for help putting it out (that's Russia v Ukraine)

It's not a fire. It's Iran. They have agency. They chose to harm Europe (and China and India and Pakistan and even Thailand) in response to the US and Israel harming it.

While I don't condone Iran's actions, fighting back is an incredibly human response and "why don't you just shut up and take it" is incredibly naive (and lowkey pretty un-American, 1776 is based because they didn't)

Fighting BACK is utterly reasonable and should be no reason for Europe to intervene. Shooting at the US and Israel, and US and Israeli merchant traffic even. Smashing neutrals is another thing entirely. What did Gibraltar (UK), Malta, Palau, the Bahamas, Thailand, Japan, and Liberia have to do with it? Iran hit ships with all those flags, owned by companies from various uninvolved nations. And they threatened any vessel transiting the strait regardless of involvement. That was their choice.

Maybe you can correct me on this but aren’t a ships flags like just something you sign a paper and now your a ship from x,y,z country? It doesn’t have much to do with who owns the ship and whose cargo is on the ship.

Yeah, but the owners were also mostly neutral; they were generally somewhat allied with the US but 'US allies that are wealthy' is not a notably more pro-Iran war group than 'US allies with lax maritime regulations'.

The ship's flag says which sovereign is responsible for the ship. Iran hit ships with neutral flags AND neutral owners.

Because its the only leverage they have. I see your point, I'm not endorsing their actions at all.

But their response is fairly rational, and also quite predictable. So while Iran is responsible for shitting up the world, I also hold the USA somewhat responsible for putting them in this situation.

As they say on that karma farming story subreddit , "everyone is the asshole here"

Edit: Coincidentally, @SecureSignals actually put it really well in a different comment from a week or so ago. They wrote my exact opinion in a much better way. Much like a NFT, I am now taking it without permission to use here:

"If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.

All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that."

So the US and Israel attack Iran, Iran attacks many neutrals for "leverage", and it's right for the neutrals to act by putting pressure on the US and Israel to stop attacking Iran, thus giving them the leverage they were looking for?

Their territory and airspace is willingly being used to attack Iran. They are not neutral and that claim is totally preposterous.

I don't really subscribe to the word "right" in this case.

Realpolitik and all that, "right" isn't really a factor here.

I don't condone Iran's actions. But I think they're pretty logical given the cards they have, and the constraint that "just roll over and take it" is off the table. Hard to blame them for that at least.

Same with the neutrals, yes, ideally they should go pressure Iran to stop shitting up the place. But they can't, they have 0 leverage/sway/pull with Iran. They do have a tiny, tiny amount of sway with the USA, so that's where they turn.

Personally, I think the USA should have anticipated this, and either ensured it had a mitigation strategy or hold off until it could come up with one. While they're not shitting up the Hormuz, they did start this localized round of fighting, and are kind of looking like they didn't think any of the consequences through, which is annoying and a bad look. They unfortunately take some responsibility because "you break it you bought it"

I actually think that when the protests were happening the American military should have scrambled whatever it had or could to get cooking immediately to help the protests with a decapitation strike. Especially because Isreal showed last year it can basically solo Iran, so there were sufficient allied military assets in-theater when the protests were cooking.

That was by far the best shot for a genuine regime change.

More comments

By that logic do you hold the USA responsible for 9/11 as well?

No, because Al-Qaeda didn't need to do it - 9/11 was insane and there is no scenario where it was a sane response to US provocation.

Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz is some combination of:

  • The obviously sane self-interested act of a regime in trouble trying to play a bad hand as well as possible.
  • A cornered rat biting everything in sight on the way down
  • A defeated regime pressing their MAD button - the credible threat to close the Straits was a key part of Iran's security strategy and to make the threat credible you have to self-modify into the kind of regime that will press the button even if it is too late to save your arse.

Iran trying to close Hormuz is the predictable and widely predicted consequence of their being subject to a regime change war by a conventionally stronger adversary. And that isn't driven by the character of the regime - any Iranian regime that cared about its own survival, including a liberal democracy, would respond in roughly the same way to the same provocation. (Iran succeeding is arguably a result of poor planning by the Trump administration)

9-11 came as a surprise to everyone. To the extent that it was a response to US provocation, the primary provocation (according to OBL, the presence of non-Muslim US troops on holy ground in Saudi Arabia) was not something that would be provocative to a sane actor.

A little yeah, it probably shouldn't have been dressed like that in that neighbourhood.

Or put another way, "talk shit get hit"

Also while not your point, I would be deeply un-surprised if 9/11 was more preventable but the ~deep state/political operators weren't super upset about it happening so they could go chimp out in the sandbox. I don't think it was an inside job, and I'm not even sure if I think the CIA/Cheny knew and deliberately didn't do anything, but the fact I'd believe that at all is kinda sad.

A month ago, Europe had an energy problem. Now, thanks to America going in without even the slightest thought for the rest of the world and setting fire to everything, we have a looming energy catastrophe.

OP is arguing that this is good, akshually. I think not. Nobody asked for this. Nobody wanted this. Even most Americans didn’t want this!

I am prepared to believe that America has a 50 year feud against Iran after the hostage crisis, but somebody who thoughtlessly gets in fights and wrecks all your stuff is not a good friend and him saying, “well, why’d you put your stuff there?,” afterwards will not make him so.

But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!

If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)

Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"

Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!" When the response should be, "Oh geez, these Iran fellas are harming our interests. I should protect our national interests better."

America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own. Other countries that like having a global ship trade need to step up and protect their interests on the waters.

If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)

Are you imagining a situation where the US government lashes out at every boat completely irrationally? Or a world where it is predictable for them to do so because it helps ensure their survival? If it's the latter, I would indeed blame China for not foreseeing the consequences of their actions and planning and revising accordingly.

I wouldn't be happy with the US either, but Washington doing what I'd predict they'd do wouldn't update my view of Washington.

Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not rationally ensuring their survival. It makes regime change more pressing. It is confirmation that they are indeed lead by a doomsday death cult, justifying the US treating them like that.

I'm tired of the US (or I guess Israel) being treated like the only country that has any agency in the world. We do something, it's our fault. We don't do something, it's our fault. Our enemies do something, it's our fault. If we didn't attack Iran and they went on a nuclear rampage in 10 years, it would be our fault. What does Europe even want from us? Why should we keep trying to seek their approval when it's just impossible to get? If we acted like Europe we'd all be dead or Soviets. Don't they want us to act differently? Don't they want us to be the Yang to their Yin? And if not, I think we just need to stop caring about what Europe wants at all.

Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not rationally ensuring their survival. It makes regime change more pressing.

You already tried regime-changing them when they weren't blocking the strait! What do they have to lose at this point? Please, try having some theory of mind.

We don't do something, it's our fault.

Can you give an example of that?

Iran and they went on a nuclear rampage in 10 years, it would be our fault.

What if they don't go on a nuclear rampage, just use it as a deterrent the way North Korea does, and all your little intervention accomplishes is more refugees and higher gas prices?

Europe even want from us?

It would be nice if your president could follow the foreign policy that he campaigned on during the elections.

Can you give an example of that?

In 2012, President Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be a "red line" that would make us likely to intervene militarily. A major sarin gas attack in Ghouta happened August 2013. President Obama pivoted to a diplomatic deal brokered by Russia. Hooray, we can't possibly have made the Europeans mad by not doing something!

However, you'd be surprised. France was particularly incensed. President Hollande had already authorized French jets to prepare for takeoff, expecting a coordinated strike with the U.S. When the US pulled back at the last minute, French officials felt humiliated and "left in the lurch." Foreign Minister Fabius later remarked, "We regret it because we think it would have changed many things," and suggested that this perceived American weakness emboldened Russia's later annexation of Crimea.

British PM Cameron remained frustrated that the world's response was being "contracted out" to a Russian veto at the UN. He argued that the failure to act would damage the credibility of international prohibitions on chemical weapons.

Germany was happy, so I guess we can make the Germans happy if we just stayed in our borders.

This event is often cited by European leaders as the moment they realized they could not always rely on U.S. security guarantees, fueling the modern push for European "strategic autonomy." Which, to be honest, more power to them.

But then if you look at the parallels to the current situation, it's striking. Trump gives a red line, "Don't harm protestors." Iran kills them by the thousands. This time, we act. Now like before there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

President Obama pivoted to a diplomatic deal brokered by Russia. Hooray, we can't possibly have made the Europeans mad by not doing something!

Ok, fair enough. France and the UK were clearly retarded here, and you guys did the right thing.

The Iranian regime is in a life or death situation (its upper echelons being already dead) and it is doing something that has given it the upper hand and that it hopes could give it negotiating power or put pressure on the US. I have no idea if this is the best strategy and certainly not saying it's a morally good one, but it seems to make sense as something that many groups of politicians threatened with imminent death might do. Nor does it prove they are a doomsday cult. (They are, but this doesn't prove it.) I also don't agree that it makes (one of) the US's original stated goals of regime change more pressing. Or maybe it does make it more pressing in absolute terms, but in relative terms it creates an even more pressing need: to solve the energy crisis. It thereby creates restrictions on what the US can do to end the regime. Again, seems rational.

But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!

As someone in Europe who wants to keep the heat on, I don't have the luxury of thinking about morality or blame - I have to focus on cause and effect. The cause of the looming energy crisis in Europe is an insane decision made in Washington in response to a borderline-insane decision made in Jerusalem - everything else since then is the natural working out of cause and effect, assuming that the Iranian regime has a normal level of self-preservation instinct.

Part of the reason why European countries are not co-operating with the US attacks on Iran is that the most likely good outcome for western Europe is that the EU or individual EU countries cut deals with Iran to get our oil through. Trump doesn't have a plan to reopen Hormuz quickly enough to defuse the energy crisis, and more enthusiastic support by European allies wouldn't change that.

If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)

If China bombed Pearl Habor (...and the White House, and wherever else half of the command chain went, and your key industries...), and the US decided to block... uh the Panama Channel? (I know it doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it screws up the world economy), and proceeds to bomb Chinese-aligned countries, and their ships attempting to go through the channel, I would absolutely blame the American response on China.

Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"

It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.

It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.

It's so weird America didn't block the Panama canal before China bombed us! But you rightfully recognize that it would be our fault if we did.

No? I said I'd blame China.

Interesting. Who do you suppose most people blame for the atomic bombing of Japan?

I don't know about "most", it always felt like a 50/50 issue to me, and "Japan shouldn't have started shit" was always a respectable position.

More comments

Huh, I read it "Would absolutely blame the American response [on China]" with "American response" as the object of the sentence. Sorry.

As an American citizen I would totally blame America instead of China.

But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!

Why do you expect this simplistic rhetoric to work? Does it actually work internally? I guess it does. But at some point, if everyone disagrees, maybe it's you who's wrong, ever thought about that?

Even stalwart Anglosphere allies positively obsessed with being friendly to the US and pitching in in its wars whenever possible, Australia and the UK, have just had their leaders deliver a rare national address and specifically say that they don't want any part of this shitshow, and would rather have austerity than go help Reopen The Straight; joining with Canada in a polite de facto withdrawal from the American reality distortion field. The causality of the current crisis is too painfully obvious to all — Iran had a defensive posture, your guys wanted a regime change or state collapse, attacked mid-negotiations with apparent maximalist goals, and Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.
So you defected, both against Iran and more importantly against your allies and other economies, this is your mess of choice, and you shan't get to offload it on anyone else. This is a repeated game; irrespective of the EV of reopening the strait in the short term, in the long term the question is what kind of hegemon is bearable, deserving of cooperation and deference in matters such as war. A reckless and indifferent one has been deemed undeserving.

Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!"

You might not be up to speed, but that's not the response anymore.

Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.

You mean, they retaliated with war crimes. And there's just no desire from the rest of the world to punish them for it. Ok then, enjoy the world you're making.

Spare me this charade. You have forfeited the moral high ground, you're doing realpolitik, building a defensive sphere, taking over oil and such (or at least offering such justifications for otherwise pointless actions). So everyone else will also do realpolitik; enough freeriding on the world's sentimentality and wishful thinking. Besides, closing a water passage in a war is only a war crime in a rather non-central sense. Meanwhile you've killed scores of civilians, support displacement of millions, bomb population centers with impunity, and your president is threatening to escalate to committing large scale war crimes with childlike glee, as a Tough Negotiation tactic that he finds very clever. Let me cite it in full:

The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately “Open for Business,” we will conclude our lovely “stay” in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet “touched.” This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year “Reign of Terror.” Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Nevermind the amount of bullshit here (starting with "serious discussions" which apparently don't happen and definitely the "new regime") and the charming bit with "desalinization". The US is consistently electing a person unequipped for knowledge work or politics at any level, and cannot be treated as a serious rational actor capable of even self-interested cooperation with other nations. In two words, it's a rogue state. Whether we will enjoy the new world or not, it'll have to be built on the basis of this undeniable fact. I'm not moralizing, just stating what everyone has accepted by now or is in the process of accepting.

I had somehow missed the threat against the desalinization plants. It really does make the "closing the strait/shooting at Qatar is a warcrime" people have egg on their face, lmao.

Meanwhile you've killed scores of civilians, support displacement of millions, bomb population centers with impunity, and your president is threatening to escalate to committing large scale war crimes with childlike glee, as a Tough Negotiation tactic that he finds very clever. Let me cite it in full:

Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be. By scores do you mean dozens? We have certainly killed fewer than the Iranians own government did a couple months back. Most Iranians are not displaced. Most homes are in tact. The Iranians I see who can still get the occasional internet access say that they aren't afraid of the bombs, they're afraid of the bombs stopping because that means the war is over and the IRCG is still in charge.

Targeting mixed-use infrastructure is not actually a war crime and there are ways to target infrastructure without permanently destroying it. Trump might actually be legitimately senile and I hope he gets replaced soon, but the military is still run by competent good people. Don't pay any attention to anything on Truth Social ever and you'll probably have a clearer view of world events.

By scores do you mean dozens?

I'm not otherwise following this discussion, but bargaining down from n x 20 to n x 12 seems like nitpicking to me.

More comments

Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be

After moralism, rules lawyering? I don't think this rule is being enforced with any sort of consistency, and after Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better! and other such claims I don't think you get to ask for it to be enforced. But to be clear, by "you" I mean "Israel + the US", since you clearly are operating as a coalition.

We have certainly killed fewer than the Iranians own government did a couple months back

Nation states are defined by having a monopoly on violence within their jurisdiction. Your opinion that the Iranian regime is not legitimate (whereas your own regime is sacred and must not be violated by foreigners), and that it is acceptable to demand submission to a foreign-backed attempt at violent revolution, is just that, an opinion; it doesn't give you the right to kill any extra civilians. Moreover you're not even doing it at the right time, should have joined in while protests were actually happening, when Iranians were killing cops and getting killed in turn.

I see estimates at > 1000 civilians dead, no idea how valid that is, except for the now-indisputable Tomahawk strike on girls' school (which Trump rather pathetically denied). I have seen footage of massive destruction that includes clearly residential housing, and the way these things go, that should have cumulatively taken some hundreds. The high estimates of 30-40-60 thousand killed in protests appear to be simply made up as well.

The Iranians I see who can still get the occasional internet access say that they aren't afraid of the bombs, they're afraid of the bombs stopping

Might be the most bizarre war ever, the way Americans all suddenly have contacts in Tehran and are grasping at straws, straining to hear the voices of unbroken opposition, to convince themselves that they're liberators, even as their Secretary of War is plainly relishing the opportunity to break a nation.

Though this reminds me, people liked to see "all the pretty Iranian woman trying to learn Trump's YMCA dance a few weeks ago". Since then, the most viral of these pretty women had her cousin "killed in a war". She objects: not a war, a rescue operation! "The reason I lost my cousin is only and only the Islamic regime and no one else!". So yes, there is something to your point.
Nobody asks now how many of these dissidents or incredibly Zionist diaspora monarchists (very funny movement, imagine wanting this guy to be your king) are children of SAVAK, or astroturfed by Israel, or not even real. What they say soothes your conscience, so they get to speak for the will of the Iranian people as a whole. The poor Iranian people now apparently need their entire civilian infrastructure wiped out to Truly rise up against the brutal regime. We'll see how it goes.

Don't pay any attention to anything on Truth Social ever and you'll probably have a clearer view of world events.

I don't actually read Truth Social, and I'd prefer if the President of the United States of America didn't use it as his platform of choice, but reality is often disappointing.

The military is ran by a visibly incompetent Fox News host with a drinking problem, who's such s good person his mother condemns him for abuse of women.

I would also just add that I think the idea that the US just now started acting with "realpolitik" is...very ahistorical. Europe accepted us after WW2 because the Russians were ~infinitely worse, not because the US didn't indulge in realpolitik.

For all the griping about Iraq (which...I get it! I also gripe about Iraq!) and American Empire, the specific failures of Iraq were bad in (large) part because it wasn't tempered by realpolitik, not because it was an imperial/hegemonic action. I think a realpolitik view (and also most American presidents throughout all of history) would have just bombed the heck out of various unlucky places known or suspected to be involved in terrorism and bribed, beg, borrowed, stolen and murdered until we got UBL and then called it a day. That might have been bad in different ways but it probably would not have been a 20-year ground occupation.

More comments

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up. Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.' Months after he made noises about attacking Europe to steal Greenland.

America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own.

In my lived experience as of this month, the safest thing for the seas is for America to stay far, far away from the Middle East, or at least to give Trump some sleepy pills.

It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's just that this is after a barrage of contempt and thoughtlessness from America and I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive. The massive cope that it's secretly some kind of 4D chess to teach us a lesson makes it 10x worse. If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true. But right now Europe is in very serious difficulties that can't be overcome by just 'getting a clue', we need time and space to find the will and the means to recover, and being friends with America is giving us the opposite of that. I'm quite happy to kiss and make up with Iran, and get some oil in return, and I don't see what UK interests are threatened by that.

In general, we would prefer to get American 'help' when we ask for it. As a wise man once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Months after he made noises about attacking Europe to steal Greenland.

Didn't he specifically rule out attacking Europe to steal Greenland?

Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world,

This is why I generally don't think Trump is the problem. The response to Trump is almost always worse than Trump. TDS is not Trump's fault. He occasionally does stuff that's legit bad but usually it's just "being blue collar" or "non-Western diplomatic norms coming from a Westerner."

For a decade now people in authority have committed to kicking, screaming, and abandoning professionalism and cooperation in response to anything Trump does.

Usually the political benefits have seemed good enough to make people think that's a good idea but this is a very serious example of how that was always stupid.

As we talked about before the motivation for this misadventure is probably something like "okay the drone and missile production is starting to get to the point where doing something is going to become mandatory or will turn forever impossible."

Getting support for something like this after the second Iraq war would be incredibly hard. With Trump at the helm? Impossible. European leaders would probably try and actively sabotage it.

The U.S. runs off on its own because TDS made compromise and cooperation impossible.

We see this domestically in the US all the time. Trump is happy to make a deal, but the Dems will maximally complain no matter what he does, so he doesn't bother and just does what he wants.

A big piece of what is happening is European leaders abandoning professionalism for personal reasons or to score easy domestic policy points (looking at you Spain) and potentially doing profound damage to the structure and economy of Europe in the process.

I also strongly suspect Trump is doing a side game with this (and with Greenland and other things) to bail out of NATO and Europe is playing right into his hands.

Yes, there’s no way Europe would ever support this, with or without Trump, because it’s potentially hugely damaging to us and there’s no obvious need for it.

The point of consulting other people is that you sometimes get told that something of a terrible idea and you shouldn’t do it.

Consulting your citizens over forced heart donations wouldn’t result in twelve pages of constructive criticism aimed at doing it with minimum pain and compensation to the widows. It would result in horror and refusal, but that’s a lot better than the alternative!

The point is that there is no benefit with consensus building with Europe because you know in advance Europe is going to oppose it regardless of if it's a good idea.

The old "if Trump cured cancer you'd see pro-cancer rallies in the street" vibe is true.

Our allies and the opposition party have made very clear that teamwork and discussion is not valuable so now the Trump U.S. doesn't bother and it's not his (or our) fault.

He loves deals and working together! In many ways he is one of the easier presidents to manage, you just have to hold your nose...but people can't.

Ultimately Europe has made discussing with Europe a completely unfruitful endeavor.

It was a bad idea that has predictably gone tits-up. The possibility of saying so is why people want to be consulted.

More comments

bail out of NATO

Man. This might be for the best – I directionally support leaving NATO, or at least scaling back our commitments there – but ideally we would give them plenty of notice and time to make their own security adjustments.

Maybe we did and nobody was listening. Or maybe we still will.

ETA to your point – thinking about it, I almost wonder if maybe this is the only way to make it stick, instead of the US just re-joining in 3 years or whatever.

I'm not truly sure if it is a good idea or not, probably not - but I have a strong suspicion that one of the things Trump is up to is to try and convince undecideds it is a great idea.

Also attacking Iran was necessary and inevitable and everyone is just trying to posture and leave the US holding the bag. It is so tiresome.

I'm not truly sure if it is a good idea or not, probably not - but I have a strong suspicion that one of the things Trump is up to is to try and convince undecideds it is a great idea.

Definitely. He tested the Europeans and they failed massively. They've demonstrated not that they are either unable or unwilling to help enforce freedom of navigation (helping attack Iran is indeed not their responsibility, FON is that of all seafaring nations), but that they are both unable and unwilling to do so. Which leads directly to the question of "what good are you as an ally"? If the answer is "bases", well, they screwed that one up too.

More comments

Please consider the possibility that we don’t all secretly agree with you.

More comments

the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive.

The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive, created this reliance and dependency, without putting in any effort to ensure its protection. The default human condition is lack. The default is for things to fall apart if they are not maintained.

If the response to that situation is to kiss up to Iran, then that is at least a rational response. If the response was to kiss up to the US to encourage us to protect your boats, that would be preferred. If the response was to come in with a super-awesome EU Fleet of anti-mine drones and clear the strait yourselves, that would be amazing.

But the situation you are in is that you have leaders decrying the US, who have no power of their own to fix the mess, but recognize the hazard of showing your belly to Iran. They can't have all three.

Now because I can tell it's sounding harsh, I really like Europe. In some part of my heart I view Europe as a museum. A precious, amazing museum. To the extent that Europe deviates from that perception, it creates dissonance. The rational part of my mind recognizes that Europe is not a museum, it is a whole continent of people who are obviously changing and doing commerce and living lives. But there is some level where I expect Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna to be static, for the French to be stereotypical, for the Italian coffee to be great. This is my own personal failing.

Europe has a privileged position in America. You're our foil. We didn't create a government in opposition to Chinese governance, or Ottoman governance. We were Europeans trying to improve upon European political theory. We think we succeeded, or at least wound up with something better than what was there in the 18th century.

But man, the World Wars followed by the Cold War did something to you guys and not all of it was good. It's a continent with self-righteous PTSD. I don't view Europe as "Just like America, but better in every way!" the way some Americans and Europeans do.

But then when I talk to Europeans for work, I often slip into a, "I"m trying to impress you guys because I'm not like other Americans! I'm cultured enough to realize that you think that my willingness to get up at 5 AM to talk to you guys as a form of unpaid overtime is ridiculous, so I will poke fun at my willing self-enslavement to my boss." I'm totally the younger sibling with something to prove, "Look, Ma! Be proud of me!"

My father was born on a US Airbase in West Germany. I hold our historical partnership in high regard and would find it worthwhile to give my life for you. I don't actually believe Europe would fight for the US if we were attacked directly, especially if someone with (R) next to their name was president at the time. I know you guys pulled through after 9/11 but I think that soured Europe on the concept as well.

I actually like your comment a lot but this part seems silly to me

The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive

  1. the modern world and industrial human society is a massive chain of interdependence. The USA is not autarkic either and depends on inputs from around the world. Definitely less than other nations, but it doesn't do it all in house either. China is grinding to accomplish this if that's your speed.

  2. up until the serendipitous invention of fracking/ability to exploit shale (quite recently too in the grand scheme of it all), the USA was also an oil importer, so getting smug about this seems really ignorant and unhelpful

The problem isn't interdependence, but interdependence is going out on a limb. We are all stronger for it, but it makes us vulnerable as well. Europe ignored those vulnerabilities and didn't care to protect against attacks to the supply chain. The US at least has a Navy protecting commerce around the world.

America, under its president, just recently just pointed at Greenland, a territory held by an European government, and basically went "Me want! Me take!", up to hinting to using military force for taking it. There was zero provocation by Denmark - one of the most consistent and reliable American allies in Europe - or the rest of Europe that caused this to happen. It wasn't just Trump's idea, as soon as it was thrown out not only did the Republicans enthusiastically line up to support it but even some lib commentators went "well... it's not completely stupid..." and the Dem response can be described as lukewarm at best. It was justified as a continuation of Manifest Destiny and what have you. The whole of European establishment understandably went absolutely hogshit and then Trump's mind wandered off to the next thing and the Americans just dropped it for now and are now expecting Europe to line up for the next adventure like nothing had happened.

You don't need highfaluting theories about history and Cold War and 18th century or endless anecdotes about snooty snippy Europeans (with the main part of the anecdote often seeming to be some personal psychodrama by the American telling it with moderate to minimal actual European participation). You can just look at this one thing! It's not the only recent thing America has done to basically teabag Europe out of nowhere but it's pretty damn big! It's a very justified reason for Europe to distance itself from America!

Denmark decided to give Greenland the right to secede, and by all accounts they want to leave, which puts current NATO security arrangements regarding Greenland in doubt.

I'm sympathetic to Europeans being upset about how this has been handled (and especially to Greenland independence) but every complaint about US behavior seems to completely gloss over these facts.

They want to leave, but not if it makes them poorer, which it obviously will. So the status quo will continue. And they certainly don't want to join the US.

A 2025 poll showed that a majority 84% of Greenlanders would support independence from Denmark, with 9% opposing. 61% opposed independence if it meant a lower standard of living, with 39% in favour. When asked in a binary choice between the USA and Denmark, 85% preferred to be part of Denmark with only 6% preferring the USA.

More comments

To add fuel to the fire: Greenland's independance party just won its first seat in Denmark's parliament and it's apparently a critical swing vote in the struggle to form a coalition there. This is still a developing story.

More comments

The funny thing is, that had the US played their cards differently, it is very possible they could have just convinced the Greenlanders they had a better deal, and let them vote to secede as you suggest. However, the rhetoric from the Trump administration burned all the goodwill, and joining the States voluntarily is borderline impossible now.

The negotiator in chief really dropped the ball with this one.

More comments

And unlike the rest of Western Europe, Denmark wanted the EU countries to support opening the Strait of Hormuz.

Because Trump's blather about things the US wouldn't rule out, magnified into a threat by journalists with TDS, doesn't hold a candle to their actual interests.

Yeah the Greenland thing is also a great example of Europe going crazy.

Trump does something great for Venezuela, removing their criminal dictator and his foreign security, and a reporter asks if he is going to take Greenland, dredging up an old offhand comment He says it's not off the table, because for a negotiator nothing is ever off the table. Suddenly a huge freakout. America bought Louisiana off the French and it's a sign of our eternal love for each other. America says, half-seriously, "Hey Denmark, what would you demand in exchange for Greenland?" and the world loses it's mind.

And it's stupid. Europe sends dozens of guys to Greenland to protect it? If protecting Greenland was actually the goal there that is a pathetic show of force. But even Europe could probably dredge up more guys. So what was the point there? It's the Greta Thunberg of military actions. It's gluing yourself to a painting. You know America's not going to attack. Some Americans tried to explain why it's in the global interest to sell Greenland to America but the overreaction prevented any kind of rational conversation about this.

But all the people saying that America doesn't need Greenland because we'd be allowed to build and use any military base we wanted there anyways... they have been proved obviously wrong over the past month. And I was one of them.

Sending a small number of troops to Greenland was exactly the right number of troops. It means there was a chance the US would have to kill someone to take the country, which they would presumably prefer not to do. An unwelcome scenario for Denmark would have been US soldiers landing and taking the country without a single casualty and presenting the new situation as a fait accompli. Tripwire forces were a cost-effective way to increase the cost of invasion and thus deter it, or – in the low-likelihood scenario where Trump decided to invade anyway – Europe would at least have received a clear sign that Trump was willing to turn military talk into lethal action against allied soldiers, making a united European response in that (unlikely) event easier to engineer.

More comments

they have been proved obviously wrong over the past month.

how?

More comments

You are straight up just lying. Trump was throwing out different ways to annex Greenland for weeks. He came up with all sorts of arguments, from how the inuits were poor and needed someone strong (not Denmark) to take care of them, to threatening invasion because a country with a weak military has no right to self determination. He ended up threatening tariffs, then backed down when it became clear that the European Union would not stop supporting Denmark.

I would call this sanewashing, but honestly this goes beyond that. You are actually just lying, because the truth would cause your standpoint to fall apart.

More comments

Trump had intermittently banged the "annex Greenland" drum from the start of inauguration on, as listed here. It wasn't just about January 2026. January 2026 was just the culmination. Whatever the case, if you're ostensibly allied to a country, you should probably not leave a door open to seizing their territory in any particular circumstance, it's like International Politics 101.

I'm not exactly sure what would have been a real "show of force" at Greenland. Denmark had and has actual forces in Greenland to deter a sudden seizure scenario, the others sent troops as a show of solidarity/tripwire.

The American action in Iran fully demonstrated that it was sensible from Europe to "over"react to the Greenland crisis, as it demonstrated that Trump has the full intent and capability to pull idiotic stunts without a regard for consequences with very little warning time.

I was writing a longer and more detailed reply to your other post but accidentally refreshed the page. Will try and get back to it. But you have to try and understand the experience of being a small country dealing with a massive country that has made clear it doesn't like you very much. You are a good patriotic American as you should be, and America is ultimately 'us'. From outside, America is 'them' and you are not, from our perspective, automatically the good guy or automatically well-meaning.

America's behaviour here is like being a police officer making a joke about raping your wife, just after beating a perp unconscious in front of you. No, there's relatively little chance he's going to do it, and nothing you could do if he did. But that kind of behaviour from an authority figure with complete power over you and a clear propensity to solve problems with violence is really unnerving.

The only acceptable answer when the largest and most powerful country in the world is asked, "are you going to take your ally's land by force?" is, "No! Fuck no! Are you crazy?! We're allies, that'd be insane!". And that's the answer every president before Trump would have given. Most of them would have meant it, too.

EDIT 1:

But all the people saying that America doesn't need Greenland because we'd be allowed to build and use any military base we wanted there anyways... they have been proved obviously wrong over the past month. And I was one of them.

I note that even here, "Lol, it's only a joke, calm down," is immediately followed by, "would have been a good idea though..."

EDIT 2:

Note that Denmark had already firmly rejected any possibility of selling Greenland during Trump's first term:

During the first Trump administration, US president Donald Trump said that the US should buy Greenland. The governments of Denmark and Greenland clarified that Greenland is not for sale and cannot be sold under the Danish constitution, and the Danish government has always rejected such proposals, which Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called "an absurd discussion".[12] Greenland invited US investment, however, stating that "we're open for business, not for sale".[44]

The lesson Trump seems to have taken from this is that if he wanted to press his suit further he should also use threats. This is not a half-serious joke, and it's most definitely not a sign of "our eternal love for each other".

More comments

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up.

Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?

If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true.

Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.

I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.

North Korea having nukes hasn't impacted European security

Some others have hit on this but it's worth emphasizing - it's very possible the plan was to get nukes and then start bombing SA/Israel/Europe and/or closing Hormuz with a nuclear backstop.

Iran is not a rational actor. It is not North Korea. NK just wants to be left alone and engage in enough international crime to stay solvent. Iran has serious regional and religious goals it is willing to pursue at absurd cost.

It can't be allowed to have the bomb.

Iran has behaved consistently rationally throughout the whole affair. Non-US-aligned regimes seeking to acquire a nuclear deterrent if possible is survival 101 since Libya, and arguably since Iraq.

The only players in this conflict who, as a matter of sincere religious conviction, base their foreign policy on a desire to accelerate the fulfilment of their religion's end-time prophecies, are the Christian Zionists in the US.

More comments

I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.

This is a luxury belief for people who think that global security is a default condition. Europe doesn't have to care about the free flow of goods because the U.S. does it for them. It baffles me that the same people currently panicking about the traversability of the Strait of Hormuz would be indifferent to chaos or autocracy in the middle east. Is the supposition that, if the U.S. were to likewise walk away with "why should we care", peace and prosperity would flow unbounded?

There are only 1-3 non-autocracies in the middle east, depending on how you categorize Turkey and Lebanon, so that's not the problem.

They would probably start tolling/restricting ships like they are now, and then it would very directly be Europe's problem, except that nukes would make direct action a lot more complicated. They might also start to support militant Islamic groups in Europe, because that's just what they do. North Korea is a lot more isolationist.

The militant Islamic groups in Europe are Sunni. The Iranian mullahs hate them more than they hate us.

Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?

No idea. Personally, I think it's both a fait accompli and very much not my problem. Sooner or later every country that can will have nukes, because it's the only way to make sure that people like Trump don't roll over you. This invasion may have pushed Iran nuclear weapons back 10 years, 20 years, or maybe not, but between them America and Russia have guaranteed that in a hundred years there will be nukes all over IMO.

Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.

Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith. If 'what we can' isn't enough for you, please stop crashing our economy.

Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith.

Nah, let's be real, there's no way.

When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up.

Yes.

Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.'

No, actually. Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.

But, as I said earlier:

And the Europeans aren't willing to lift a finger to defend themselves against damage caused by Iran's war crimes (yes, attacking neutral shipping is a war crime), and instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it.

Europe consists of Neville Chamberlain's children, the lot of them.

I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive.

You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.

instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it

Because America did.

Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.

I'm sure. Israel is the only ally America actually treats like an ally.

As far as I'm aware, the Gulf states were not consulted and were previously against war with Iran, though they are now more worried about Trump pulling out than keeping going. "AP reports that Gulf leaders have become discontent with the United States’ handling of the conflict and have expressed anger over the absence of prior notice of the operation."

You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.

I don't think that. I'm British. The chances of Russia getting anywhere near threatening us are tiny, whereas the economic shock from the American-led sanctions crippled our economy for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to argue that we were doing well before that, but I saw the change from being an okay-ish country to a poor one in real time. We are now simply incapable of meaningfully militarising.

"I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!"

Tangentially, "why do Americans build houses out of wood?" always seems like one of the perinneal Transatlantic questions.

  1. It's cheap.
  2. It's easy to insulate. The US is at similar latitudes to Europe but has far more extreme temperatures, so insulation is much more important.
  3. It's got good performance in earthquakes strong enough for tropical cyclones (with good framing practices) and nothing survives a strong enough tornado so there's little point in building for tornado strength.

Because there's so much of it, I guess, and you have enough room that houses can be spaced apart and fire doesn't spread. The Nordics and the Swiss do it too, in the countryside.

We do it in the suburbs as well. Almost all 1-2 story houses are made from wood once you get north of the Scania region, and I think it's something like 95% of Swedish single family homes are made from wood. A fairly recent developments has also seen non-negligible amount of new apartment buildings being constructed from wood as well. I

Why do we build by water? It looks better. Why does having a pool or lake look good to humans? It was evolutionary advantage to develop instincts to like being near freshwater. Wood I am guessing we also evolved to like trees because it was easy to build with and make tools.

Why do we build by water? It looks better.

That and it's the best way to move heavy shit around+you can harness it to power stuff so it's natural to build the industry and trade infrastructure there and then it's natural to live nearby where the jobs are and then oops we have a city

It's actually a fun game on Google maps. Zoom in on random cities basically anywhere on earth, and they're either on a coast or on a river. It's extremely hard to find cities that break this trend. If I remember correctly the sunbelt cities in the USA was like the only place I could find them reliably, i assume because they're some of the few urban agglomerations started post the invention of big rig trucking so never needed water to import/export.

Yep, there's a handful of British colonial cities that were supplied by rail(Johannesburg etc) and the American sun belt(and big rig trucking is overstated; DFW gets a heck of a lot of its supply by train heading into Fort Worth). It's a rail/prerailroad distinction.

It's a rail/prerailroad distinction.

Excellent point

Johannesburg is the largest city in the world not on a navigable river. It was built around a gold mine.

Also true. Humans like natural, fractal patterns. I'd like to make a 'living' ubuntu desktop where all your windows are carved in foliate / acanthus patterns.

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