site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   25310 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

But I do have different standards. First, the US and Israel are clearly the aggressors here.

Iran has been launching missiles at Israel, engaged in near constant terrorism against Israel, and is engaged in a variety of forms of cyberwarfare with the US and Israel.

You can trace back decades in an attempt to figure out who started it "first" but a fight has been going on for a long time.

Iran just mad because they've been punching people in the face without ramifications and Israel and the US said "one more time and I'm going to shoot you in the knee" and then they did.

They are not the aggressors.

My general understanding is that Iran would prefer to support partisan groups against Israel in a matter rather reminiscent of the US support for the Mujaheddin. While I am much more sympathetic towards Ukraine than Hezbollah, I find it difficult to say that e.g. Poland providing rockets to Ukraine which are predictably fired into Russia is okay while Iran providing rockets to Hezbollah which are predictably fired into Israel is a declaration of war on the part of Iran. (Of course, it helps that Ukraine has the ability to pursue their goals through regular military means rather than terror attacks. But there is a continuous spectrum between a soldier attacking legitimate military targets and a terrorist blowing up civilians.)

Israel has meanwhile run a decade-long campaign of slowing Iranian nuclear weapon development through assassination and bombing. As an undeclared nuclear power, Israel is the last country on Earth to have any moral standing for bombing to deny nukes to others.

Or take the assassination of Soleimani in Baghdad, which caused some weak-sauce retaliation against American bases. Sure, you may claim that he had no legitimate business in Iraq, but if instead Iran had killed an IDF general in the West Bank (who likewise would not have legitimate business there) you can bet that Israel would have retaliated as well. Of course, the real retaliation for Soleimani was likely Iran greenlighting the Oct 7 attacks.

Now, it could be that I am genuinely wrong and IRGC forces have habitually launched missiles against Israel, but I recall the Biden years to be rather quiet as far as direct attacks are concerned, presumably because Iran did not want to get into a pissing contest it knew it would lose. All the escalations since Trump took office seem to originate in the US and Israel.

Iran didn’t greenlight October 7, they appear very much to have been surprised by it was the intelligence assessment. Iran was and is much closer to Hezbollah than Hamas, Hamas are Sunni, were on the other side in the Syrian Civil War, etc. It’s more of an enemy of my enemy thing with them.

Of course, the real retaliation for Soleimani was likely Iran greenlighting the Oct 7 attacks.

So your argument for Israel being the aggressor is that the US and Israel killed the king of terrorists and assassins via assassination? And that this action makes the abduction, rape, torture and murder of over 1000 civilians a legitimate act of warfare and retaliation?

That is certainly a choice.

Any argument that Israel is the aggressor has to deal with 10/7 and the arm of the Iranian military that functionally exists to murder Israeli civilians (the proxies).

Iran has been launching missiles at Israel,

Has Israel perhaps done something directly prior to these missile attacks?

engaged in near constant terrorism against Israel, and is engaged in a variety of forms of cyberwarfare with the US and Israel.

That's something everyone is engaged in all the time, and it's crazy to act like they're crossing some boundary that warrants a hot war.

Has Israel perhaps done something directly prior to these missile attacks?

Yes yes Iran has always been at war with Israel since the formation of the modern Iranian state, you can always point to some earlier insult in the back and forth. Structurally I think arming, funding, and directing terrorist groups with the primary goal of destroying Israel is a good place to stop with respect to determining initial cause of conflict - but fine, they've always been at war.

hot war

You don't get to decide when someone has enough of you punching them in the face and decides to punch back.

Cyberwarfare, yes. Constant terrorism, no. Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel since October 2023, and never stopped.

Constant terrorism, no.

What do you call all the money and hardware sent to the Kurds?

Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel since October 2023, and never stopped.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I was under the impression that proxy warfare was not graded the same way as direct war.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I was under the impression that proxy warfare was not graded the same way as direct war.

I thought so too, but then Iran insisted protecting Hezbollah be part of the ceasefire so...

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