site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20375 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.

Such drones do not exist, and frankly never really existed.

Au contraire - the shahed drone is itself one of these drones. This isn't because the drones are particularly cheap (although the shahed is both cheap and easy to manufacture), but because the US MIC is fantastically corrupt and so their interceptor missiles are extremely expensive, far more so than the drones themselves. These interceptors are also reliant on materials parts that are sourced from China, who presumably won't be selling them to their military adversaries (yes, the US can source and process themselves - you'll just have to spend a decade or so getting the infrastructure required up and running. Good luck!)

None of this is to deny your point about insurance, although it is likely that insurance would go completely insane just by declaring the area a no-go zone; the Japanese government would likely have to requisition/purchase shipping or subsidize insurance. Similarly, it's undoubtedly true that China is a major industrial power. I am far from convinced that this would be a good way to wage an anti-shipping campaign, but China has a ton of industry, so even if it is the worst possible way to wage an anti-shipping campaign, they might be able to make it work!

This is in fact the main point I am making. Is it possible to defend against this kind of attack? Absolutely. But is it possible to do so in a way that's sustainable and doesn't prevent the Chinese from achieving their goal of preventing commercial traffic? No. That's all they need to do - render commercial shipping unviable. There are all sorts of unique options available to them - I've heard that they're working on some really cool underwater drones as well, which would be even more fun to shoot down and interdict. But the point remains that the Chinese would be able to prevent Japan from resupplying in any real way while the Japanese would be unable to return the favour. Even if I just abandon the argument about military effectiveness to you entirely, the relative economic impacts on both parties from this kind of strategy is too much to overcome.

My basic point here is that there's a reason that Shaheds have supplemented more conventional weapons systems like ballistic and antiship missiles, rather than replacing them. And similarly that war is hard.

I agree - it's just that the Chinese have both, and more importantly the economic and industrial base required to sustain modern warfare for far longer than Japan.

If the US fleet and the Chinese fleet fought on an infinite featureless plain the US fleet would win.

Actually nobody would win - all the ships would just fall over and be unable to move. But the problem is that the industrial base which made the US navy has since been shipped off to China, who, according to the Pentagon, are capable of manufacturing 236 ships to every 1 produced by the US. In any kind of long or sustained conflict, China wins hands down.

It's possible that the answer is "no" but the fact that that is the question should tell you a lot about the relative power of the two countries.

The problem is that the reason Taiwan is valuable is the TSMC manufacturing plants, which can be easily destroyed the moment Taiwan looks to be in danger. If China wanted, they could in fact take over Taiwan - especially with the US tied down in Iran. The problem is that taking over Taiwan with military force renders it almost completely worthless, which is why the optimal strategy for the Chinese is to just wait for the US' decline to progress further and then take it bloodlessly.

Au contraire - the shahed drone is itself one of these drones.

I explained very specifically why I think this is incorrect, or at least misleading.

Since I wrote a rather large comment, I will recap:

  • Shahed drones are very vulnerable to gunfire, which is cheap. (I assure you the US military has lots of guns).
  • The US military has now acquired and used very cheap laser-guided rockets, which are within the ballpark range of the cost of a Shahed, specifically for using against drones like the Shahed.

If you're going to discuss this stuff with me on here, please do me the courtesy of reading what I write (more or less). And if you're going to disagree with me, please do me the courtesy of explaining why, so that I can learn something new.

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