site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   3760 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Iran was one of these countries until 2020 or so. Except Trump backed out of the JCPOA for spurious reasons and while Iran continued to abide by its terms after the withdrawal, it led to a growing distrust of the West among Iranians. So in 2021 they end up with a more conservative government since all electing moderates does is get you burned. The idea that a deal would be useful now only works under the idea that Trump is extremely petty and backed out of a perfectly good deal because he didn't like the fact that Obama negotiated it. You can bitch about specifics all you want, but Iran was getting inspected during this time. If you're going to make the argument that Iran was trying to covertly violate the deal then fine, that gives an excuse to pull out, but if that's the case it makes no sense to try for another one.

Iran was one of these countries until 2020 or so. Except Trump backed out of the JCPOA for spurious reasons and while Iran continued to abide by its terms after the withdrawal, it led to a growing distrust of the West among Iranians.

I don't think the reasons were spurious because I think the correct and credible reason was that Iran was not, in fact, "one of those countries" and the JCPOA was worth less than the paper it was written on. And Iran was not abiding by even the JCPOA's extremely lax provisions.

Iran was one of these countries until 2020 or so

Well do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA contained a sunset clause, i.e. the restrictions on Iran ended after 10-15 years?

Do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA did not permit so-called "anytime anywhere" inspections but instead gave the Iranians the ability to delay inspections of facilities?

Well do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA contained a sunset clause, i.e. the restrictions on Iran ended after 10-15 years?

Is this an actual criticism that anyone levied? It's pretty standard practice for treaties/laws/contracts to sunset after a period of time with the understanding that they will be renegotiated before the term of the contract ends.

Is this an actual criticism that anyone levied?

Absolutely. The concern was that Iran was getting a lot of significant concessions up front and in return was agreeing to limitations which were only temporary.

I don't think this is true. (But would very much appreciate a correction if I am wrong.)

I recall following these negotiations closely when they were occurring and don't remember anyone citing upfront concessions as a reason not to do JCPOA. Everyone of the negotiators was familiar with the failure of KEDO in North Korea (for promising nuclear reactors now in exchange for disarmament later), and a lot of effort was spent to avoid this failure mode. Skimming the Congressional Actions section of the wikipedia article on JCPOA, I don't see any mention of legislators saying they won't vote for JCPOA because of upfront concessions, and this wapo article from the time about reasons people won't vote for it does not mention upfront concessions.

There are of course other reasons that Republicans did not vote for and eventually withdrew from the treaty, but again I do not think time-based concessions was one of them.

Me: Well do you agree with the criticism that the JCPOA contained a sunset clause, i.e. the restrictions on Iran ended after 10-15 years?

You: Is this an actual criticism that anyone levied?

Me: Absolutely. The concern was that Iran was getting a lot of significant concessions up front and in return was agreeing to limitations which were only temporary.

You: I don't think this is true. (But would very much appreciate a correction if I am wrong.) I recall following these negotiations closely when they were occurring and don't remember anyone citing upfront concessions as a reason not to do JCPOA.

According to "United Against Nuclear Iran":

The deal provides Iran a clear pathway to nuclear weapons as restrictions on its uranium- enrichment and plutonium-processing capacities lift and the deal “sunsets” over the next 10 to 15 years.

In exchange for temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is receiving permanent benefits up-front.

Link: https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/sites/default/files/jcpoa-fact-sheet-pdf-052019.pdf

Thank you for the reference! I concede that there were people who said that the JCPOA "front loaded" the benefits. I do think, however, that it is disingenuous of this group (and you) to call lifting sanctions a "front loaded" benefit.

Thank you for the reference! I concede that there were people who said that the JCPOA "front loaded" the benefits. I do think, however, that it is disingenuous of this group (and you) to call lifting sanctions a "front loaded" benefit.

  1. The paper I linked to seems to claim that the lifting of sanctions allows Iran to withdraw monies which would otherwise have been frozen indefinitely.

  2. I remember at the time, critics referred to this as a "signing bonus."

  3. An alternative approach would have been to keep these monies frozen for the entire 15 years and agree to release them only if, at the end of the 15 years, Iran was in full compliance and had abandoned any efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

Do you dispute any of this?

"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it. I doubt the Russian inspectors in the US were ever allowed into Area 51, for example.

"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it.

Given Iran's actual behavior, I don't think it's unreasonable.

Iran's behavior was pretty typical foreign policy. For a country to support various paramilitary proxies and unsavory non-state actors is commonplace in geopolitics. I've never seen any good evidence for the theory that if Iran's religious government got nukes, they would use them offensively.

I have enough theory of mind to understand why the argument that "even a 0.00001% chance that Iran would use nukes offensively is too much, and in any case we should keep them defenseless so we can do whatever we want to them" is appealing to many Israelis and to US hawks. It's not appealing to me, however.

Iran's behavior was pretty typical foreign policy.

To help illustrate your point, would you mind identifying two countries whose behavior is analogous to that of Iran, including the groups which are analogous to Hezbollah?

I've never seen any good evidence for the theory that if Iran's religious government got nukes, they would use them offensively.

Well do you agree that (1) Iran substantially controls Hezbollah; (2) Hezbollah has repeatedly launched attacks directed at Israel in general; and (3) Iran's leadership has, in substance, called for Israel to be wiped off the map?

Iran’s behavior in the current war offers plenty of evidence- the attacking random countries thing.

Has Iran attacked any country, during this war, that is not a US protectorate?

Iraq, Cyprus, and Britain.

All are US allies and/or host US military installations. Attacking a random country would be, for example, Iran launching a missile against Uganda.

The JCPOA was negotiated after the US invaded Iraq due to patently false claims of WMD. It is widely understood that the WMD inspections led by the US/IAEA helped the US invasion in identifying/destroying military targets.

Therefore given the US's actual behavior, this restriction did (and still does) seem pretty reasonable to a majority of the outside world.

Then they could have let Germany do the inspections; they weren't gun-ho supporters of the Iraq invasion, but could be trusted not to look the other way knowing at whom any Iranian nuclear weapon would be aimed.

The JCPOA was negotiated after the US invaded Iraq due to patently false claims of WMD. It is widely understood that the WMD inspections led by the US/IAEA helped the US invasion in identifying/destroying military targets.

Therefore given the US's actual behavior, this restriction did (and still does) seem pretty reasonable to a majority of the outside world.

Are you saying that WMD inspections in Iraq were of the "anytime anywhere" variety?

No, I'm observing that many governments think that the US acted in bad faith with previous inspections. This naturally results in these governments being skeptical of granting the US "anywhere/anytime" inspections even if they would be otherwise warranted.

These "other governments" don't include just Iran, but most of the UN.

No, I'm observing that many governments think that the US acted in bad faith with previous inspections. This naturally results in these governments being skeptical of granting the US "anywhere/anytime" inspections even if they would be otherwise warranted.

Based on your logic, those governments should be skeptical of ANY inspections regardless of whether those inspections are "anytime/anywhere." Agreed?

I generally agree with you, I'm just observing it's a huge ask and probably a hard sell.

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