site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   28418 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.

It reads like I said it was about as measured and controlled as Israeli actions. Maybe you missed that part of my reply? Here, let me highlight it for you:

It was a revenge attack for deaths caused by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine. It was about as measured and controlled as Israeli attacks often are.

Here you go. I'd rank that attack as being pretty bad as a representative of how Iran handles things with regards to America. Given that this was a retaliation against Israel. A better example for how they deal with America would be their response to Operation Midnight Hammer. Where they gave advanced warning. Demonstrating capability, rather than signaling intent or want for war.

But as a response to Israel, as I've told you numerous times already, that conflict is very messy. Israel has already dictated the rules of engagement and Iran plays by those rules when defending itself and its interests. Conflating Iran's dealings with America and Israel is not valid, and you should stop trying.

Hopefully that clarifies my position on the topic for you. I'd implore you to read more than one sentence at a time. It gives a better overall picture and minimizes confusion on your half, and the need to reiterate everything on mine.

That creation of a lot of rubble does not necessarily mean that the rubble-creator has a "complete disregard for human life."

Then what is your issue with Iran retaliations against Israel? Please try to form a coherent standard that can apply to both Israel and Iran. I can accept a standard that says both parties have been reckless and bad, or that they are both playing by the same ruleset.

Then what is your issue with Iran retaliations against Israel?

There are two issues. First, Iran intentionally targets ordinary civilians while Israel does not. But more importantly, Iran is the bully in this situation. It could easily have an uneasy peace with Israel as is the case with Egypt and Jordan but it chooses to relentlessly stir the pot.

It reads like I said it was about as measured and controlled as Israeli actions. Maybe you missed that part of my reply?

I'm pretty sure I missed nothing. Rather, I asked you a very simple yes or no question, and you evaded it with whataboutism.

Although our discussion is about to end, I will summarize it for any lurkers.

(1) You said the following:

Iran has shown through actions that it retaliates in measured and controlled ways to defend itself.

(2) I asked if you believed Iran's terrorist attack on the Jewish Community Center in Argentina (which killed 85 innocent people) counted as "measured and controlled" "retaliation" to "defend" Iran.

(3) You evaded the question, instead trying to change the topic to a discussion of Israel's supposed bad deeds.

In any event, I do not engage with people who evade or misrepresent, which you have done both here and in another exchange.

Accordingly, this discussion is concluded. Feel free to have the last word -- I will not be reading or responding.

Israel is functionally targeting civilians in Lebanon and Palestine. Along with directly targeting civilians when they deem them important enough to kill.

I'm pretty sure I missed nothing. Rather, I asked you a very simple yes or no question, and you evaded it with whataboutism.

How two combatants interact with one another is not whataboutism. If group A attacks civilians and group B also attacks civilians then claiming that group B is bad because it attacks civilians whilst neglecting to mention or flat out denying that group A also does that is wrong.

By the actions of Israel bombing Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah bombing Israeli civilians is par for the course. I don't like it, but those are the rules of engagement between the two. Especially considering how many civilians Israel has killed compared to Hezbollah.

To that end, whilst I don't like the attack, it's definitionally controlled and measured in context with Israel dropping bombs on residential areas.

(3) You evaded the question, instead trying to change the topic to a discussion of Israel's supposed bad deeds.

I should have called this out right away, but 'Deny Guys' like you are not worth conversing with. Couching everything in 'Do you deny?! is just a rhetorical vehicle to drive any honest engagement you get towards a dumb point like this.

As an example:

'Do you deny being a liar?'

Well, yes, I'm not a liar, you would say.

'So you've never told a lie?'

Well, I definitely have, but I wouldn't consider myself a liar...

'Hah! so not only are you a liar, you were lying just now when you said you weren't a liar! Proving that you were and are a liar!'

I can't say I lament being blocked by one.

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