site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3783 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 19, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can anyone steel-man the Argentinian position re: the Falklands (Malvinas)? I got into a few heated arguments with an Argentinian women during my course about them, and the Argentinian position doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Argentine never actually had sovereignty over the islands, nor does the local population want them there.

You can't hold any ideology other than Rationalism if you believe only opinions that are justified by rationality. To hold any other ideology you must be willing to hold stupid, irrational opinions that might actively hurt you. Only an irrational opinion can be a costly signal that you hold the ideology, and being willing to look irrational is a relatively low cost symbol.

To be an Argentine Patriot one doesn't worry about the Steelman of the Malvinas, the Malvinas are Argentine because to be an Argentine Patriot is to believe the Malvinas are Argentine.

Otherwise one would run into the situation where another Argentine claims the Malvinas and you are there saying, well rationally according to international law it's a nuanced issue. Which isn't very patriotic of you.

The Argentine claim further functions as a signal that they, as Argentines, are allowed to make the claim even if they have no intention of following up on it. No one can stop them from saying it. This is a petty form of pride, but a valuable one. What kind of cuck refuses to insult his opponent because it is "irrational?"

It's impossible. Argentina loves pointless territorial claims. I present to you the Beagle conflict, in which Argentina demanded three worthless frozen islands in the Beagle Channel from Chile. First the two countries agreed to ask Queen Liz 2 to decide. She gave them to Chile and Argentina threw a hissy fit. Then they agreed to ask the fucking Pope. John Paul 2 gave them to Chile and Argentina threw a hissy fit again. Then finally Argentina got trounced by the British and finally decided having a mortal enemy across the Andes wasn't worth it.

Well geographically it seems to make sense. The current population of the island is 3k-ish English-speaking people who consider themselves to be British, so it's a non-starter politically.

What I don't get is, why doesn't Argentina send over a couple of poor struggling families with their adorable kids who just want to work as fishermen or ranchers or something instead of warships and soldiers. Just a couple get established, then a few more families come over, and they bring their extended families over too. Call anyone who objects racist. Next thing you know, presto, a simple majority of the population now wants to be Argentinian, and they can make a good case to take over the island without a shot fired. Even if you think the whole Great Replacement stuff is a "baseless conspiracy theory", what's to stop any interested party from doing it on purpose? At such a low population, it wouldn't take all that many people.

The Brits are wise to that strategy and there are significant restrictions to immigrate into the Falklands.

Insert obvious crack about the British being wise to that strategy on small islands across the Atlantic, but blind to it at home?

I didn't want to be glib, but yes.

IMO I think a lot of it is just that the Malvinas are basically the only war Argentina has ever fought. The early wars for Independence etc were when there were few people in Argentina and barely skirmishes. It’s the only war they’ve fought posts mass migration to Argentina so it’s basically the only thing they can talk about in their military history.

Geographically though it is there’s. And within 50 years it probably will be Argentinas because England is declining. Though this may depend on Trumpism and Milei’s long-term alliance. Their claim to it on geography is probably stronger than a bunch of Italians to Israel.

Argentina fought in multiple wars, but the Falklands/Malvinas are just the only recent one- they fought in the triple alliance, for example(the South American world war).

Yea but Argentina was tiny then. 1.8 million people. That was before any semblance of modern Argentina. Wikipedia does say 18k? Argentina casualties which is a semi-real conflict.

I think it’s seem fair to say real Argentina didn’t occur until the late 19th-early 20th century immigration waves. It’s even more extreme than pre-post Ellis Wave migration in America.

You're right that Argentina doesn't have a legitimate claim to the islands under standard liberal international relations theory, but there are other theories of international sovereignty. The Argentinian position is straightforward: Look at a map. They consider the Southwest Atlantic Ocean to be Argentinian. They also claim the Antarctic Peninsula.

The anticolonial aspect shouldn't be underestimated either. Under a strict interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States should have opposed British recapture of the islands.

Ah, the pretty borders theory of international relations, never to be underestimated.

It's pointless barely-justified jingoism of the sort that is very common in Latin America. But because the Argentines are white people behaving like Slavs and the counterparty is Britain, it's newsworthy.

International law wise, I don't think there is a case. The political reason is part sovereignty (not wanting a stronghold of a foreign power near your shores, kind of like Cuba in the times of the Soviet Union) and economic (by having the island, Britain gets a chunk of fishing rights and offshore drilling that would've been Argentinian otherwise).

The emotive reason (the one that really matters to most people) is sort of a sunk cost fallacy: we fought for them, and our people died for it, so it's sort of a disrespect to their memory to give up the claim, nevermind that the war was started by an illegitimate and unpopular military government.

It's also gotten more salient recently due to a couple of reasons:

  • The football team took up the cause as a part of their rallying cry, and since they won the world cup they're basically heroes.
  • The left wing is very third worldist, so a faction that would be anti-conflict instead took up the cause as anti imperialistic.
  • The right wing has become a lot more online, and there is a sense that the UK no longer deserves to hold the islands (due to their ongoing political crises)

So while before you could reasonably claim to not care about the islands and not be laughed out of the room, nowadays Milei gets flak for having expressed his admiration for Margaret Thatcher a decade ago.

That being said, I don't think anything will come out of it in the short term, and in the long one it'll be settled with some sort of shared ownership deal, that maybe phases the UK out eventually, if anything.

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