site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   28141 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I find it a little amusing that most of these would constitute things being worse than the status quo ante. It seems that if tomorrow Donald announces that the war is over and everyone goes home and we end up where we were before all this mess except Iran spent some missiles and replaced the Ayatollah you'd consider this a smashing success.

Yeah if this war ends and Iran doesn't control the strait and has no military or nuclear weapons that is a victory. By definition.

I find it a little amusing that most of these would constitute things being worse than the status quo ante.

You asked for things which would be a failure. Why is it amusing that failure is worse than the status quo ante?

Because prosecuting a war at some cost of blood and treasure only to end up with the status quo ante is a failure.

The status quo ante itself is unreachable, because so much of Iran's military and leadership has been killed. We spent blood and treasure, and they spent blood and treasure and nothing else changed isn't really the status quo ante.

Indeed, the Ayatollah is dead, however it's not clear that merely replacing Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei counts as a success. Or at least, I have never heard anyone describe such a thing as a success scenario before the war required it.

Yes? You asked what a failure would look like and Shakes answered, why would a failure not look like a failure?

Shakes' position is that the status quo ante is a success.

No?

Yeah if this war ends and Iran doesn't control the strait and has no military or nuclear weapons that is a victory. By definition.

Iran had a military at the start of this. If all it achieved was smashing up the Iranian military, but Iran doesn't get to toll the strait and doesn't get any closer (or further) from getting nuclear weapons, then it is still a moderate success by his metrics. Seems straightforward to me. It was one of the stated aims of the bombings right from the start, to degrade Iranian military capabilities. So if it achieves that without the needle moving in any way in the other direction, then it's an unambiguous, but partial, victory for the US.

You'll notice that the comment about the war being a success if Iran has no military was made after I had responded to the original comment that boils down to "the status quo ante would be a win"

The status quo ante is impossible because we destroyed their military and nuclear program. It would take them a generation to rebuild what we destroyed in a few weeks. Therefore when you say "the status quo ante" I assume you mean that nothing else changes, except for that we destroyed their military and nuclear program. Which is obviously an American victory, by definition.

The status quo ante is impossible because we destroyed their military and nuclear program.

Yeah, I'd say it's a little early to call this one. Casualties appear to amount to 5% of the IRGC strength. 5% is not nothing, but I wouldn't call it destruction. The status of the nuclear program is simply unclear at this point.

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