site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10053 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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.

Once again, your entire theory is based on a lot of wild assumptions using as evidence things you can't possibly know (i.e. how long the Iran war was "planned", which is not in any way how military operations planning works.) You assume that Trump is incompetent because you think the timeline was different to what has happened, which you know because of your seat on the National Security Council, presumably? Assuming Trump wasn't lying that time? Assuming whatever you based this on was reported accurately and without bias, as any article about Trump always is?

I believe that the Iran war was incompetently conceived because of how badly it has gone!

How badly has it gone? The US has decimated their leadership, owns their skies, is blockading their sea access, taken single-digit casualties and the best they can do is raise insurance rates on shipping and the price of oil a dollar a gallon. I don't know your background in military history, but that is not traditionally the sort of outcome seen as a loss.

At the same time, there has been a major realignment of the Sunni nations against Iran and toward rapprochement with Israel and the US. This has been partially long in the works, partially due to Trump's specific policies, and partly due to Iran bombing everyone in the middle east in their hissy fit over not being able to do shit against the US air force. Even if the Iran campaign isn't decisive, this realignment might be the biggest setback Iran has experienced in their modern foreign policy. The Shia crescent is broken. And somehow, people keep telling me how badly Trump is doing. Enlighten me!

The stated reason for the war is to prevent Iran from acquiring the leverage of a nuclear bomb. Even once acquired, this is not the greatest leverage given that actually using it is somewhat problematic. Through the war, Iran has gained/discovered/confirmed very powerful conventional leverage in its ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. This is pretty bad! I am not really sure what the off-ramp is.

On the cost of economic disruption and more expensive oil, I would personally say that the various political gains you note in the Middle East are not worth it, especially in the big picture that the US has been weakened relative to China.

The stated reason by who exactly?

Trump.

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