site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10202 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 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.

They are doing this because they sincerely believe that Jews in Jerusalem are bad for Islam, and when the Muslims of the world see which country is doing God's work while their own governments are decadent and faithless, they will finally accept Ali as the true heir of Mohammed.

There are a lot of ways that Iran could have sought to enhance their prestige and standing in the Muslim world. For example, Iran could have sought to turn itself into a shining vision of a bright Islamic future, kind of like Dubai (or at least what Dubai aspires to be). Or it could have tried to establish itself as the champion of Muslim minority groups who were facing religious persecution/assimilation, e.g. Muslims in China or Russia. Or it could have set itself up in opposition to the Sunni leadership in Saudi Arabia. And probably a lot of other things.

And yet, by some strange coincidence, they chose essentially the same villains for their script as is chosen by Leftists.

The Uighur thing wasn’t really a big topic in the late 1970s, and for Iran antagonizing Russia is always a bad idea if it can be avoided. They certainly did set themselves up in opposition to the Gulf Monarchies, including Saudi Arabia (although they are most hostile to Bahrain, which has a Shia majority ruled by a Sunni monarch). Nevertheless, a combination of the Hormuz, access to Hajj, shared OPEC membership and the Iraq Iran war, plus economic difficulty means that waging war on Saudi directly is infeasible. That said, they fund the Houthis who fought a proxy war against Saudi Arabia for many years and bombed Saudi oil facilities.

The difference is that most Muslims around the world either like Saudi Arabia (because they provide immense foreign investment into Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc etc) or don’t care about it. Many people have family or friends with fond memories of Hajj. The main group who dislike Saudi Arabian monarchy are hardline Sunni Islamists who consider it decadent and Western - but those same theological hardliners also consider Shia Islam in its entirety an aberration and a heresy. The only major group of Sunni Islamists who throw their lot in with Iran are Hamas, and that is very much an alliance of convenience (and both sides know it).

The Uighur thing wasn’t really a big topic in the late 1970s, and for Iran antagonizing Russia is always a bad idea if it can be avoided.

Antagonizing the US is also a bad idea, as you seem to concede. Anyway, I don't see why it matters that the Uighur thing wasn't a big topic. Iran could have made it a big topic, or at least tried to. There is also plenty of discrimination against Muslims in India, parts of Europe, and probably in the Philippines as well.

hey certainly did set themselves up in opposition to the Gulf Monarchies, including Saudi Arabia

They certainly could have chosen to go after Saudi leadership with the ferocity they normally reserve for Israel, agreed? I mean, they could have had "Death to King al Saud" chants or whatever.

The difference is that most Muslims around the world either like Saudi Arabia (because they provide immense foreign investment into Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc etc) or don’t care about it.

Sure, by contrast, the Iranians were surely well aware that there was a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment as well as anti-US sentiment. Which (in my view) surely informed their choice of a scapegoat. When I said "Ideally you want one who is successful and who therefore excites peoples' envy and greed," I probably should have added "and it also helps if that success has already made the person unpopular."

And yet, by some strange coincidence, they chose essentially the same villains for their script as is chosen by Leftists.

It's not that surprising if you consider that the Iranian Revolution followed on the heels of the 60s and 70s waves of protest and all of that period's political change, and was in part driven by students in the same vein as Kent State and friends. The Islamic hardliners were but one faction initially, but happened to displace the others after the Shah was forced out and Khomeini returned, although some of the trappings of leftist anti-colonial revolution were still useful.

some of the trappings of leftist anti-colonial revolution were still useful.

Sure, and here's what I said earlier in response to the OP:

The obvious explanation is one that is as old as time: It's useful -- socially, emotionally, and ultimately politically -- to have a scapegoat. Ideally you want one who is successful and who therefore excites peoples' envy and greed.

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