site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13813 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.

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.

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