site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   21415 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 5, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do not understand what leads the left to defend Maduro and the right to attack the ICC.

You really don't understand why the right would attack a court that believes it supersedes the sovereignty of the United States and would try members of the US military as war criminals? The Trump administration is correct to sanction and dismantle that court.

The ICC's clear violation of international law aside, it also makes sense politically.

The left would love to have a leftist body such as the ICC which can overrule the actions of a right wing President like Trump. Then they can say "we didn't violate the Constitution, it was out of our hands".

Are you also surprised that the left would attack the NRA?

try members of the US military as war criminals?

What US members have been tried, what are their suspected crimes, and what did they actually do?

If they are guilty even by the US's own standards, only avoiding prosecution by inaction or corruption, they deserve it even by the US's own standards.

Otherwise regardless, they should be labeled by the ICC, without any US legal repercussions, so we can learn. If we don't seek input from those with different moral standards, we cannot improve or our own or stop them from decaying.

It appears the ICC cannot actually enforce over a nation (at least a powerful one like the US). The best they can do is get a world leader arrested if they travel outside...except they haven't managed that in the modern day, either. If they are effectively vocal, saying "we think you did something wrong", I don't think that deserves anything beyond a vocal response "I think you're wrong". Sanctioning a powerless ICC is at minimum a bad look.

Otherwise regardless, they should be labeled by the ICC, without any US legal repercussions, so we can learn

Perhaps the ICC will learn something from US sanctions.

If they are guilty even by the US's own standards, only avoiding prosecution by inaction or corruption, they deserve it even by the US's own standards.

As a side note, when the ICC was set up, its proponents assured everyone that the ICC did not have jurisdiction over and would not act against countries with their own systems in place to prosecute war crimes. (At the time, those opposed to the ICC knew that this was BS, that eventually the ICC would start going after Israel and the United States.)

To put it another way, by its own charter, the ICC is not supposed to do what you are suggesting, i.e. to give a kind of second opinion regarding the legal system in the US, Israel, or anywhere else.

Otherwise regardless, they should be labeled by the ICC, without any US legal repercussions, so we can learn.

Learn what? We already have processes for handling this. What additional value does an extrajudicial kangaroo court in Europe have in enforcing our laws. Perhaps we should start trying European politicians and soldiers in our own made up courts. Would that help them learn?

The ICC is not powerless. You are correct that they are de-facto powerless against the United States because we fight back against them. The answer is not to stop fighting back. It's to remove the threat entirely. You kill a tumor before it grows large enough to be a problem.

The Trump administration realizes quite correctly that the next Democrat regime could use the ICC to harass its domestic enemies while sidestepping Constitutional concerns. If there is a higher court that is above the Constitution and answers to no one, it's quite convenient. That's why they need to be defunded, disbanded, and sanctioned now.

What additional value does an extrajudicial kangaroo court in Europe have in enforcing our laws.

It provides value when certain factions want is prohibited by your laws. You might have the right to free speech domestically, but if your political opponents gain power and decide that criticizing your political opponents is a hate crime, and pack you off to a foreign country extraordinarily render you to face foreign "justice", then that doesn't matter.

It's the same kind of thing Charles I (and some king of Spain in the early 1800s) did by simply asking a foreign State to invade in return for economic promises.

One imagines a deal that the EU will keep the US dissident-free, while the US will keep the EU tariff-free into US markets.

The Trump administration realizes quite correctly that the next Democrat regime could use the ICC to harass its domestic enemies while sidestepping Constitutional concerns

This has kind of already happened; European countries (and US companies that would like to continue to do business in Europe, most notably payment processors) have already fought a few US companies for blasphemy (or "hate speech", as they prefer to call it). Which is kind of why the US needs to put its foot down and make sure that if the Europeans want their own firewall, they build it themselves (which would result in so much money -> political power changing hands that European gerontocracies would get turfed anyway).

The ICC is not powerless.

Agreed. If the ICC were strictly limited to advisory opinions, the "you might learn something" argument might have some merit. But the ICC believes that it can issue arrest warrants and some ICC countries would actually enforce those warrants.

Power is sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe that an institution has power, then it has power. And it's pretty obvious that the ICC is trying to get power.

What additional value does an extrajudicial kangaroo court in Europe have in enforcing our code of military justice?

Because sometimes the US system is wrong: it has been wrong in the past, and we will see it in the present as wrong in the future. The court may show and persuade us, via our own will, to see how it's wrong.

Perhaps we should start trying European politicians and soldiers in our own court of justice. Would that help them learn?

Yes: I think it's fair if Europe is free to largely ignore our rulings, like we largely ignore the ICC, but they would benefit from listening. Europe is facing a rise in right-wing parties, and there's a chance the left will undermine democracy and their other by-then-former principles to suppress them, so much that even leftist Europeans who today condemn Trump realize their by-then-former allies have gone too far.

The US does not always interfere positively with Europe. But Europeans should really ask if they want the US to leave them alone entirely, because sometimes by their own standards, the US government is right and theirs is wrong. Same with the ICC interfering with the US.

The Trump administration realizes quite correctly that the next Democrat regime could use the ICC to harrass its domestic enemies when Constitutional concerns get in the way.

They could also ignore the Constitution with some other excuse, or revive the ICC. Either way they must use their own power, since the ICC has effectively none, so I doubt it's significantly harder.

I understand why Trump's attacking them now, because he disagrees with them, but I'm trying to understand where he has the moral upper hand.

Because sometimes the US system is wrong: it has been wrong in the past, and we will see it in the present as wrong in the future. The court may show and persuade us, via our own will, to see how it's wrong.

As I noted above, that's not how the ICC is supposed to work. It's not supposed to have any jurisdiction at all over countries with their own systems in place to prosecute war crimes.

Also as I noted above, the ICC is doing a lot more than simply sharing its opinion. Rather, it is trying to get power. It is trying to get into a position where its arrest warrants are taken seriously.

so much that even leftist Europeans who today condemn Trump realize their by-then-former allies have gone too far.

But Europeans should really ask if they want the US to leave them alone entirely, because sometimes by their own standards,

I do not feel that Europeans nowadays generally have standards beyond tribalism either. They were cheering when the leading candidate got excluded from elections in Romania (likely with significant American fire support), and they will cheer if this happens to AfD or FN or whomever.

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