site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   26385 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 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.

the Tet Offensive, was a failure for North Vietnam in the sense of taking territory or inflicting casualties,

But the Tet offensive succeeded precisely because it influcted casualties and took territory. Not as much as hoped but still significant.

Look at it from the other way. The Ichi-gou operation "succeeded" because it devastated the NRA, struck one of a series of deathblows (counting from the war all the way to 1949) to the KMT, took massive swathes of territory from KMT control, and on paper achieved its tactical operational goal of creating a land passage for the northern and southern areas controlled by the Japanese. But if we consider the broader context of WW2, this was a failure; the operation didn't knock the Chinese out, didn't eliminate US air support, didn't improve the logistical situation (and if anything worsened it significantly), and the Japanese couldn't even credibly control the countryside of the areas they nominally held.

Resounding tactical victories, clear operational success, yet generating none of the big picture strategic impacts that were actually needed to win the war for the Japanese given that for them to "win" they had to vassalise China.

The Americans took plenty of territory in Vietnam and it still didn’t translate into victory, much less anything meaningful. That was what made the Battle of Hamburger Hill so infamous; for how worthless it was. It isn’t anything new though. Go back to the Roman Empire if you want. When you look at the height of Roman expansion, one thing that stands out if you’re familiar with its history is why Gaul was left out by certain academics, or there at some points and not at others; despite the fact that Rome went in and beat the shit out of them numerous times. The reason for that was because when the Romans went into Gaul, there was nothing to “take over.” The only cities there were in Gaul were the ones the Romans built, while Gallic militias and rebels would retreat deep into their own territory.

The romans won gaul though and it was a super important conquest.

I would also argue that the US lost vietnam partially because it didn't take territory. It was some retarded defensive intervention than a real war. Kind of like the current Iran conflict.

I myself have big reservations about whether Trump's retardation in this conflict will accomplisha nything. But your argument makes no sense.

Of course. The issue wasn’t them defeating the Gauls. That’s the entire point. They beat them time and time again, and yet still had a problem holding it down.

Edit: You edited your comment after I made my reply, but I’ll briefly address the rest. You claimed in your other comment that the Tet Offensive succeeded in good measure because it took territory. The counterexample to that is that there are places were Americans took territory at great cost, only to later abandon it because they realized how worthless and costly the pursuit was to begin with.

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