site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   23791 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Man. "High dudgeon" now. Where do you people get this stuff?

“You people”? “Where do I get this stuff?” Do you have any argument beyond being rude and nasty?

Strait traffic is 2/3rds of pre-war normal, I think this is substantial evidence that war critics were wrong. I think a lot of war critics are uninterested in the possibility. But Iran won’t ever control the Strait or acquire nuclear weapons. It was easy and cheap when everyone said it would be hard. And Trump was right to do it.

and you're doing that thing where, when pressed on a variety of assertions, you ignore all but one and change definitions.

My argument is extremely consistent and instead of interacting with it you seem to just be looking for an excuse to act righteous.

But Iran won’t ever control the Strait or acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran is still there. They still have agency. Yes the US smashed their regular forces, and inconvenienced their nuclear program, and damaged their economy, and there is traffic in the strait. All well and good. But Iran is still there, and they still have agency, and as long as that remains the case the US has a mortal enemy that it neither took out of the picture nor subdued. The US does have the upper hand, doubtless, but it's expensive, it requires a lot of attention and effort to maintain, and it will only become harder as Iran continues to explore avenues for subverting American nonproliferation measures.

The US is strong, is powerful, is clearly the military victor, and yet news of Iran's permanent and lasting defeat are exaggerated and premature.

and it will only become harder as Iran continues to explore avenues for subverting American nonproliferation measures.

It will become easier as Iran is weaker. They will either have to come to the negotiating table, adopt ever more expensive workarounds they can’t afford, or collapse.

and yet news of Iran's permanent and lasting defeat are exaggerated and premature.

Well nothing is permanent but Iran is at America’s mercy and not the other way around.

We'll see. Maybe you're right. I'm certainly no expert. But Iran seems to perform more like Afghanistan than like Venezuela or Iraq.

“You people”? “Where do I get this stuff?” Do you have any argument beyond being rude and nasty?

I have posted complete arguments that you are responding to. "You people" are the ones who project things like "high dudgeon" and "angry" onto calm responses. You continuously accuse me of being angry, "rude and nasty" not because I have been rude and nasty, but because you're upset that someone is arguing with you and throwing personal attacks makes you feel as if you have a moral upper hand.

Strait traffic is 2/3rds of pre-war normal, I think this is substantial evidence that war critics were wrong. I think a lot of war critics are uninterested in the possibility. But Iran won’t ever control the Strait or acquire nuclear weapons. It was easy and cheap when everyone said it would be hard. And Trump was right to do it.

Yes, you keep asserting this, ignoring that "traffic at 2/3 pre-war levels" is not a victory condition. Critics who point this out are not uninterested in the possibility, they are asking you to justify your claims.

My argument is extremely consistent and instead of interacting with it you seem to just be looking for an excuse to act righteous.

I don't know what to do with this much itony and lack of self-awareness. I'll give you "consistent" in the sense that yes, you repeat the same thing over and over with increasing belligerence.

This is not really an argument, you are just trying to point and laugh at me and use the approval of the audience to feel as though you have one. This is especially puzzling because the progress from limited traffic in the straits to current levels is very good evidence in favor of my position. I might be willing to respect the fact that your position is more complicated than just assessing how much Iran is capable of threatening the American position. But I don’t think you can repeat my own views to me in terms that I would understand. For that reason, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

This is not really an argument, you are just trying to point and laugh at me and use the approval of the audience to feel as though you have one.

This is quite tiresome. The easiest way for you to get updoots is to tell me off. "The audience" loves it. The last thing I expect when arguing with anyone here is applause from the crowd. If you are feeling piled on, consider why, in this place of all places, hardly a progressive or anti-Trump stronghold, you're having a hard time making a persuasive case.

This is especially puzzling because the progress from limited traffic in the straits to current levels is very good evidence in favor of my position.

Your position is that the war is good for us and is proceeding favorably, and your evidence is that things aren't quite as bad now as when the war began.

Making this argument while accusing me of having no argument makes me suspect your defensiveness is perhaps a little niggle of self-doubt?

I might be willing to respect the fact that your position is more complicated than just assessing how much Iran is capable of threatening the American position.

I have told you this repeatedly. Iran's ability to threaten the American position is not at all the most important consideration here.

But I don’t think you can repeat my own views to me in terms that I would understand. For that reason, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing

That's fine, but when you drop in next week to declare triumphally again that Trump is right about everything, the war is going great, and it's totally been good for America, you will likely face the same skepticism and questions.

Your position is that the war is good for us and is proceeding favorably, and your evidence is that things aren't quite as bad now as when the war began.

This is ridiculous. We destroyed the army and navy of a regional power that has been fighting us for generations and the big consequence everyone predicted they would impose on us has failed to materialize. This is as big a win as a war can be.

Cool. They're defeated, so we can stop spending blood and treasure on them, bask in a post-war victory, and reap the economic and political rewards you say are due imminently, without worrying what Iran or their proxies will do next year, or the year after that, or years from now. Right? That's what you're saying, right?

This is probably what will actually happen (because an Iran with no military reshapes the Middle East in America’s favor), and the fact that Iran can’t meaningfully threaten traffic in the Strait is extremely good evidence in favor of this.

Well, I genuinely hope you are right, but "meaningfully" is doing a lot of work there and I look forward to seeing how this will turn our balance sheet black.

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