site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   27697 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.

what would it take for you to admit this war was a mistake?

Why won't you answer this simple question?

It has now been 29 days since you said that the war will basically be wrapped up in three weeks.

Is it even possible for you to admit that the war was a mistake, or do you believe that everything "achieved" so far has already made it worth it regardless of how it ends? If so, you should just say so, so that we can all update accordingly.

In the post you linked I said five weeks, and it’s been six, so can I say “same difference potato potato” or do I need to explain what someone really means when they say “just a second”?

Is it even possible for you to admit that the war was a mistake

Because you seemingly phrased this question such that I’m actually irrational and refusing to recognize the truth (“that the war was a mistake”) as though my zealotry is blinding my eyes. Next I can say “nothing can ever convince me” and you can all roll your eyes and write me off? Is it possible for you to admit that the war is going well?

Next I can say “nothing can ever convince me”

Is this the case, then?

Is it possible for you to admit that the war is going well?

Sure. For example:

  • Iran hands over the uranium and pinkie promises not to make a nuke
  • the Ayatollah steps down and the Iranians make a new thank you USA
  • Iran renounces support for the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah in word and in deed

Those are the kind of things that would make me say the war was a success. Now it's your turn!

Considering that the war is going well something pretty dramatic would have to change for it to become a failure. But for the sake of argument let's see...

  • Iran starts consistently winning skirmishes and engagements, sinking ships, killing hundreds of American soldiers, etc.
  • Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, et al. start crying uncle and start begging for America to exit / surrender to Iran
  • Iran acquires nuclear weapons
  • Iran tolls the Strait of Hormuz
  • The Abraham Accords are abandoned and Israel reverts to being a pariah state

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.

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.

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.

More comments

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