site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   11348 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How Trump Took the US to War in Iran

Netanyahu claimed it would be possible to effect quick regime change via Mossad-aided protests and even arming the Kurds (who apparently just kept the guns, having learned from past American 'support').

Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

Mossad is obviously too smart for this to have been their true assessment. The CIA quickly realized it was BS:

The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside out. They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu’s presentation into four parts. First was decapitation — killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran’s capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. And fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country.

The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.” At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. “In other words, it’s bullshit,” he said.

The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?” General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling.”

So, Trump's team at least was not snookered by claims of easy victory. But as chairman of the JCS, Caine had to walk the fine line between giving military advice and administering politics.

He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risks of Iran blocking it. Mr. Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think it would be a very quick war — an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June. General Caine’s role in the lead-up to the war captured a classic tension between military counsel and presidential decision-making. So persistent was the chairman in not taking a stand — repeating that it was not his role to tell the president what to do, but rather to present options along with potential risks and possible second- and third-order consequences — that he could appear to some of those listening to be arguing all sides of an issue simultaneously. At no point during the deliberations did the chairman directly tell the president that war with Iran was a terrible idea — though some of General Caine’s colleagues believed that was exactly what he thought.

It's reminiscent of the bind that the JCS was in back in 1964-65, when LBJ played them against each other and silenced their belief in a full military commitment so that he could tiptoe into the Vietnam War without anyone noticing. Meanwhile Vance was the most dovish of his advisors.

In January, when Mr. Trump publicly warned Iran to stop killing protesters and promised that help was on its way, Mr. Vance had privately encouraged the president to enforce his red line. But what the vice president pushed for was a limited, punitive strike, something closer to the model of Mr. Trump’s missile attack against Syria in 2017 over the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The vice president thought a regime-change war with Iran would be a disaster. His preference was for no strikes at all. But knowing that Mr. Trump was likely to intervene in some fashion, he tried to steer toward more limited action. Later, when it seemed certain that the president was set on a large-scale campaign, Mr. Vance argued that he should do so with overwhelming force, in the hope of achieving his objectives quickly.

The deciding factor against negotiations was, apparently, really stupid. Why on earth would the Iranians want to be taking handouts from the US like this?

That same week, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff called from Geneva after the latest talks with Iranian officials. Over three rounds of negotiations in Oman and Switzerland, the two had tested Iran’s willingness to make a deal. At one point, they offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel for the life of their program — a test of whether Tehran’s insistence on enrichment was truly about civilian energy or about preserving the ability to build a bomb. The Iranians rejected the offer, calling it an assault on their dignity.

It seems like his team would have decided against intervention if the choice was up to them. Ultimately the buck stops with Trump, and everyone else who's come this far is willing to live with his decisions.

I suppose I'm in the minority to say I think it's good to establish the precedent that if we find negotiating with your leadership very annoying and the international community has little sympathy for them, we'll either abduct them and put them on trial in NY or blow them up while they're in their house.

While I think your plan to get rid of Trump has a certain charm, I thing relying on China to blow him up has some serious downsides.

I mean, MAGA is more like Venezuela than like Iran, a very personalized regime, removing Trump would certainly change US policy. On the other hand, an assassinated Trump would be as much a martyr for his cause as the Ayatollah. All the valid reasons for not blowing up the Ayatollah -- he is old, will probably die soon anyhow, will be replaced by another hardliner -- would also apply to Trump. And crucially, the effective military capabilities of the USG would not be hamstrung at all from this.

For the US, there is the option of a bloodless regime change in the midterm elections (after which he will be severely limited in his ability to make policy) seems much preferable to violent foreign interference in the US.

Now, I know your counterargument, both the Ayatollah and Trump have committed crimes against humanity (like the slaughter of protesters for the former, or the state-sanctioned Pretti shooting and the bombing of school girls for the latter) for which they should answer in the Hague, and sometimes a violent death might seem like the best available approximation to that if getting them to the Hague is not feasible, but with heads of state you always the primary concern is always the larger impact on their society, not if they personally get their just rewards or not. Once they are disposed, you can safely put them to trial.

Killing Trump would likely drive the American people further down a road of international isolation, religious fanaticism and nuclear and conventional militarism. It would also further establish your preferred precedent of just murdering heads of state which are generally disliked, and I think rather than making other leaders try to be less like Trump or the Ayatollah, they would instead work to install mechanisms where their sudden demise would create widespread negative outcomes.

It looks like the price for killing the Ayatollah was that the next one took control of the strait, if China blows up Trump that might just be the justification which Vance needs to take Greenland (to safeguard it from China, or because one of the killers wore a ski mask or whatever).

Only if you have a valuable resource and have pissed off Trump in the past. The rulers of Eritrea, Laos, and Angola can sleep soundly.

Except it didn't work at all? And that strategy led to a false confidence that this war wouldn't lead to the consequences it actually led to? Hopefully you're in the minority.

If I was a tin pot dictator I would find Trump extremely intimidating at this point

Exactly. Countries aren't run by Paradox Game Sims. Being senior leadership in a country in that position is incredibly dangerous in this era. Most of these people just want to vibe around absorbing massive corruptionbux and not receive a missile.

Which is, of course, why every non-US Western country operates in the "vibe around absorbing corruptionbux and not missiles" mode.

After all, who in a post-scarcity society would want a repeat of the early 1940s?

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