site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8586 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 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.

Saddam Hussein fired chemical weapons directly into Iranian cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people yet the Iranians kept fighting for years in the hope that they could seize some territory in compensation.

It seems pretty doubtful that blowing up some civilian infrastructure would achieve much of anything

Grok say this never happened. And from what I know about the US military they tend to find chemical weapons as not effective but I’m no expert.

And from what I know about the US military they tend to find chemical weapons as not effective but I’m no expert.

My point wasn't that chemical weapons are effective, it's that Saddam was willing to cross all moral red lines against the Iranians and it didn't work. Where is the evidence that your strategy works?

Grok say this never happened

Perhaps you should think and research with your own brain instead of replacing it with a machine

Dude. You 100% used a machine to research whatever you said occurred in Iran. You used either Wikipedia, Google, or maybe some podcast bro. AI can just scan more data points than google.

You didn’t go to Iran and interview villagers and do soil samples.

FWIW chemical weapons have never been effective in war. History is filled with stories of high civilian casualties and destroying civilian infrastructure led to victory. Roman salted the earth. Mongols slaughtered entire towns who fought to well so other towns would just agree to be slaves. America carpet bombed Europe and nuked Japan. Sherman marched thru Georgia.

Wikipedia indicates a few tens of thousands of civilian injuries from Iraqi chemical weapons, some Iranian and some Kurdish in an Iraqi city recently captured by Iran.

Just to be clear you quoted sources that indicated “0” recorded instances of Iranian civilian deaths.

(1) My intent was to point out that both you and VIM were making overbroad claims. Iraq did "fire chemical weapons directly into an Iranian town" (not a city), though those weapons did not "kill hundreds of thousands of people".

(2) The second linked article indicates 100 Iranian civilian deaths.

to be clear, those were intended as separate statements, as in "Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian civilians and he killed hundreds of thousands", not "Saddam's chemical weapons killed hundreds of thousands"

If I meant "Saddam killed hundreds of thousands specifically with chemical weapons" then I wouldn't have separated the statements with an "and" but I suppose I was too imprecise. My bad

Not some civilian infra, it would need to be nearly all of it. Full shutdown of roads, industry, oil, etc. Any building that makes other things. If production is mixed into residential then the residential has to be hit too to hit the production.

This would of course be a genocide but if nobody can move an inch without being cluster bombed with artillery surely Iran would collapse if only to starvation and looting. The strait would probably be open in this case.

Trump hesitates because he fears the inevitable war crimes tribunal this would cause from democrats. He is not confident republicans can hold the executive for the remainder of his lifespan, or that some other republican president would throw him under the bus in an act of bipartisan goodwill.

The strait would probably be open in this case.

Why? Has everybody forgotten that partisan / guerrilla warfare exists?

Partisans can exist only within a living civilian population. Guerrillas can't exist for very long without civilian support.

There are plenty of examples of guerrillas fighting for decades without much or any real civilian support.

The latin and african guerrillas finance themselves without civilian support through the drug trade. I doubt Shia guerrillas representing the last bastion of Iranian revolutionary struggle would debase themselves to that level, unless they wanted to lose significant legitimacy in the islamic world.

Sure they can. You can stockpile supplies that will last you months, or even years, very easily.

Decentralized cells of IRGC units could certainly survive and threaten the strait. I believe most could be convinced to surrender by remaining IRGC leadership if Tehran and other major cities are flattened by fuel-air bombs, cluster munitions, or whatever the modern equivalent is. Perhaps Trump also shares your doubts about a civilian infra-bombing escalation. To me though, it might be his only way out of the mess.

I want to clarify that I was totally against starting any military conflict with Iran to begin with. However, now that direct hostilities have started, we have to decisively finish any conflict with countries whose official slogan is "Death to America", or we will be leaving yet another problem for future generations to clean up.

I want to clarify that I was totally against starting any military conflict with Iran to begin with. However, now that direct hostilities have started, we have to decisively finish any conflict with countries whose official slogan is "Death to America"

…if your problem is with the slogan, then why oppose starting the conflict? Their slogan didn't change, though I suppose they now chant it with more sincerity.

we have to decisively finish any conflict

You could easily do that. Just withdraw unilaterally. Of course that would require the US to stop being a client state of Israel.

Well, the US is a client state to Israel, which is why unilateral withdrawal is impossible. Hence Trump's dilemma with Iran and the strait, and the likely need for bombing warcrimes to obliterate Iran to get himself out of a losing war.

What happens if Trump commits bombing warcrimes, they're ineffective and Iran returns the favor against the Gulf? Iran is a huge country that would take quite a bit of effort to actually depopulate whereas the Gulf is entirely reliant on a handful of desalination plants. Such an exchange could easily wind up going worse for America's allies than Iran. At that point what do you do, nuke Tehran to reestablish deterrence?

It seems like the reason the US is in this mess is because it keeps doubling down, losing, and winding up in an even more humiliating position than before.

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