site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26593 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.

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.

Saw some mainstream reporting today that asserts that the plan is probably to stay with NATO but extract immense concessions in some form, with threats of "okay Russia, go ahead."

That Trump's trying to negotiate is certainly the way to bet. But the Euros totally walked into this, and the most basic Trumpology could have told them that.

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

Yes I am very much aware that many people here are not happy about current events.

What is the plan? Let Iran nuclearize and then start attacking everyone else in the region with drones and missiles and cause economic chaos by blocking Hormuz? That's pretty much what they want to do. They aren't shy about their geopolitical goals.

Doing nothing is a decision - it's easy to justify to yourself in a trolley problem kind of way but that doesn't mean it is safe or a good idea.

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