site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23456 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 12, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have worked?

For one it is not at all clear what his current goals are, or what specific problem he has with Europe that he wants to solve. He just does and says stuff all the time. It is impossible to know what is serious and what is blustering.

Overall I think he should be more clear about what his boundaries actually are and what the consequences for breaking them will be. Instead he makes vague, aggressive statements on Twitter that could be interpreted in multiple ways. He also needs to make it clear that the US will reward those who adhere to his demands. And once he has made an agreement with his allies, such as sanctions on Russia, he should actually hold up his side of the deal instead of going back on it.

For one it is not at all clear what his current goals are, or what specific problem he has with Europe that he wants to solve.

You literally cited his specific criticism and goal in your previous post. What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have gotten European NATO countries to meet their spending commitments?

Overall I think he should be more clear about what his boundaries actually are and what the consequences for breaking them will be.

Obama and Biden did this. The results were the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The process of getting NATO members to increase their spending is an example of what I want him to do, at least for a time. However, most of what he does isn't that. He still threathened an invasion of Greenland, and thus the dissolution of the alliance. Once again an example that he is a poor ally and incapable of keeping his end of a deal.

The process of getting NATO members to increase their spending is an example of what I want him to do, at least for a time.

And again, I'm asking what method you think would have worked? Most of Europe clearly doesn't want to do anything of the sort. I understand that the "Get a job or you're out of this house" feels like fascism to a lot of people, though it does fall directly in line with my "Boomer Common Sense" analysis of Trump. But again, what lesser, gentler, more diplomatic measures do you think would suffice to get Europe to meet treaty obligations and generally return to being allies worth having?

He still threathened an invasion of Greenland, and thus the dissolution of the alliance.

For which we got a better strategic position in Greenland that isn't dependent on an increasingly unreliable NATO.

And again, I'm asking what method you think would have worked

But that did work? He did the right thing and it worked, spending increased across the board... But then he threathened to leave anyways as his whims changed. NATO is unrealiable because of the US weakening it - The other members are no longer the problem.

He may not know, himself. He seems to just vent his spleen, randomly, at random targets, whenever the mood takes him. I've gotten into the habit of just ignoring every Trump tweet.

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