site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21884 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.

If the United States hadn't withdrawn in a hurry from Afghanistan after 20 years of pouring military materiel into it, I might grant that argument.

But as it happens, a bunch of religious zealots with guns won their country back despite the economic and technology imbalance.

First of all, as I've explained many times before (all the way back to the subreddit), fighting off a foreign occupation is an entirely different thing than a domestic insurgency. Guerrilla warfare can sometimes work to accomplish the former, never the latter.

And I do not think that modern first-world politicians are assassination-proof.

No, but they're entirely replaceable. Because elected politicians are basically figureheads (see Congress, the Biden presidency, etc.). Kill them and nothing much changes. Because the actual government, where the actual power resides, is in the million-strong permanent bureaucracy. The "swamp." The "deep state." And how effective is assassinating a few faceless bureaucrat, when there's millions more just like them?

And civilian uprisings have successfully unseated heads of state in Nepal, Madagascar, Bangaladesh, and Sri Lanka.

First, I wouldn't class any of those as First World countries. And second, did unseating and replacing those heads of state actually replace the regimes as well, or did the same Deep State stay in place and keep on running things in pretty much the same way? (I'm genuinely asking, because I don't know.)

And I doubt any of them had anything comparable to the massive surveillance apparatus of the US Government. Or the might and — more importantly — sheer institutional loyalty of the US Armed Forces.

To quote Google's AI (since some people here appreciate this sort of thing) when asked if such a rebellion could succeed:

An armed rebellion against the U.S. government is highly unlikely to succeed due to the overwhelming technological, firepower, and logistical advantages of the U.S. military. While asymmetric warfare could pose challenges, federal forces—including the military and National Guard—can be mobilized under the Insurrection Act to suppress domestic uprisings.

Key factors influencing this analysis:

• Military Superiority: The U.S. government possesses advanced weaponry, including drones, tanks, and aircraft, which outmatch civilian equipment.

• Historical Precedents: Attempts at insurrection, such as the Civil War, have been successfully met by federal force.

• Challenges to Success: For a rebellion to succeed, it would likely require significant, massive defection within the U.S. military, which is not considered likely.

• Expert Consensus: Analysts suggest that while localized political violence is possible, a large-scale, organized, and successful overthrow of the U.S. government is highly unlikely.

While some argue that widespread civilian insurrection could mirror insurgency tactics used in foreign conflicts like Afghanistan, the overwhelming consensus is that a direct armed revolt against the U.S. government is futile.

Or, from the National Constitution Center:

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses.

First of all, as I've explained many times before (all the way back to the subreddit), fighting off a foreign occupation is an entirely different thing than a domestic insurgency. Guerrilla warfare can sometimes work to accomplish the former, never the latter.

Never? I mean. I can think of some examples: the Cuban revolution, the Chinese revolution, the Nicaraguan revolution, the Rwandan civil war... Frequently guerillas become something more like a regular army as they develop strength but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were able to develop into regular armies starting from guerillas.

In the American tradition (going back to the "Revolution") governments are found on both sides of the rebellion, and any rebellion that meaningfully threatened the status quo of the regime (I don't use the term in a pejorative sense, mind you) would almost certainly involve a split government and likely a split armed forces.

However, overthrowing the government is not the only way to use violence to influence policy (Declaration-poasting or no). While a ground-up rebellion in the United States would not overthrow the government, it might gain concessions. Just look at how appealing the idea that we should get rid of drug laws to stop incidental violence is to the general public and extrapolate from there to Troubles-like situations.

In the American tradition (going back to the "Revolution") governments are found on both sides of the rebellion, and any rebellion that meaningfully threatened the status quo of the regime (I don't use the term in a pejorative sense, mind you) would almost certainly involve a split government and likely a split armed forces.

And it is precisely because of the unlikelihood of that split government that one will not see rebellions meaningfully threaten the status quo of the regime.

While a ground-up rebellion in the United States would not overthrow the government, it might gain concessions.

Highly doubtful. (This bit from Military Strategy Magazine comes to mind.) I think Yarvin is right that when you see the government make "concessions" to appease some violent group — always a leftward concession — this is just a Mutt-and-Jeff act where the violent group is just giving (Left) elites an excuse to sell to the public for doing something they already wanted to do anyway.

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