site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4173 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.

There are conflicting reports on if Iran was starting to concede it's nuclear stance during negotiations last week.

On the one hand, Oman said Iran was going to reduce it's stockpile.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb,” said Albusaidi, describing the understanding as “something completely new” compared to the previous nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama.

He said the negotiations have produced an agreement on “zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling it a breakthrough that makes the enrichment argument “less relevant.”

On existing stockpiles inside Iran, Albusaidi said that “there is agreement now that this will be down-blended to the lowest-level possible … and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.”

“I think we have agreement on that, in my view,” he added.

Wall Street Journal says the opposite though. Laurence Norman, WSJ reporter in Germany, says, "My understanding comes from non-U.S. officials close to the talks as well as what Washington has said. This is what we have from 3 people."

Iran came to Geneva on Thursday with a draft text of a few pages as it had been asked. It did not permit the U.S. or others to keep the text. It was planning to do so Monday at the technical talks. But they talked through what was in it. But the draft text was not the key text

Attached to the text was a single piece of paper, which Iran described as its 10 year nuclear plan. The text was based around the idea that as Iran's enrichment needs expanded, it's enrichment should be permitted to expand. The paper set out an ambitious set of targets or expanding its civilian nuclear program. The new version of the Khondab reactor (formerly known as Arak heavy water reactor) would be completed. A number of other long-planned, never-built research and power reactors would be put into operation.

In order to fuel those supplies, Iran would need to run 30 cascades of IR-6 advanced centrifuges Tehran said. That's more than 5,000 advanced centrifuges. Iran would need to be able to enrich up to 20% to meet the demands. That is what Iran was proposing.

Let's compare that for a moment to JCPOA. For the first decade under that accord, Iran was permitted around 6.000 IR-1 basic centrifuges. For 15 years, its enrichment purity cap was 3.67%. In other words, Iran was saying the enrichment deal shld be weaker than the Iran deal.

Overall, I don't think we can take it for granted that Iran was capitulating during talks.

Is there any way for Iran to credibly promise not to get a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future?

It strikes me that with each Israeli-USA attack on Iran, it becomes more obvious to any Iranian that a nuclear weapon might be a useful thing to have. The bombings might set back the physical process, but they increase the motivation.

If a bunch of guys come to my house several times and kick in my door and beat me up and break my furniture and tell me "you better not get a gun, if you get a gun we'll get really angry!" My first thought, and I would think any man's first thought, is "I better get a gun."

I just can't see a way for Iran to credibly make a promise that they don't want a nuclear weapon in a world where they quite obviously should want a nuclear weapon.

Is there any way for Iran to credibly promise not to get a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future?

I would say "probably, yes." As an extreme example, they could agree to permit the establishment of a joint US/Israel military base within Iran; that all the money from their oil sales would go through an escrow account in the United States to be immediately frozen in case of non-compliance; that a US led task force would have the right to inspect any location in Iran at any time without advance notice and remove and/or dismantle any nuclear materials or equipment; that the US led task force would have the right to install kill switches in all Iranian ships and military vehicles allowing the US to remotely immobilize them with the touch of a button; etc.

It strikes me that with each Israeli-USA attack on Iran, it becomes more obvious to any Iranian that a nuclear weapon might be a useful thing to have. The bombings might set back the physical process, but they increase the motivation.

I think the motivation is pretty close to being maxed out at this point.

If a bunch of guys come to my house several times and kick in my door and beat me up and break my furniture and tell me "you better not get a gun, if you get a gun we'll get really angry!" My first thought, and I would think any man's first thought, is "I better get a gun."

Well, if they only came to your house and beat you up when you yourself had beat up their family members, it might occur to you that it might make sense to simply stop beating up their family members.

I just can't see a way for Iran to credibly make a promise that they don't want a nuclear weapon in a world where they quite obviously should want a nuclear weapon.

Well there is a difference between "get" and "want." I agree that they can't credibly promise not to WANT a nuclear weapon, but if they are willing to make enough concessions, they could probably make a compelling argument that they will refrain from trying to GET a nuclear weapon.

Well, if they only came to your house and beat you up when you yourself had beat up their family members, it might occur to you that it might make sense to simply stop beating up their family members.

I am pretty sure that Iran and Israel have been going at that for decades, so at this point the question of who escalated at which points is moot. Israel had Trump kill Qasem Soleimani, then Iran helped Hamas commit Oct 7, then Nethanyahu killed a couple of ten thousands in Gaza, and now convinced Trump to kill the Ayatollah. We will see what Iran will do next.

But at this point, it feels to me that this is a conflict without good guys, and the rest of the world should simply stay out of it. Perhaps after five years of ground warfare both sides will wisen up and deescalate. Or perhaps the religious nutjobs will stay in power.

I am pretty sure that Iran and Israel have been going at that for decades, so at this point the question of who escalated at which points is moot.

That may very well be so, but the question I was addressing is what Iran can do -- as a practical matter -- to stop being attacked by Israel and/or the United States. One possibility would be to acquire nuclear weapons and/or otherwise get so strong that (perhaps) nobody would dare attack them. A second possibility would be for Iran to (1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and any other similar proxy organizations which is uses to engage in terrorist campaigns against Israel; and (2) stop calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, etc.

"But that's not fair! Israel is the aggressor!" I can hear people saying. I disagree, but even if that were true, Iran could still take the second option.

But at this point, it feels to me that this is a conflict without good guys, and the rest of the world should simply stay out of it.

With respect to most of the conflicts Israel is involved in, I would agree. But with Iran, I am not so sure. My impression is that Iran is fomenting Shiite unrest throughout the Middle East, including in the Persian Gulf. This implicates vital American interests.

A second possibility would be for Iran to (1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and any other similar proxy organizations which is uses to engage in terrorist campaigns against Israel; and (2) stop calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, etc.

The problem is that it is hard to know if a deescalation would be reciprocated. If your opposite is playing a non-zero-sum game, he might reciprocate. Or he might be playing chess, where any attempt to deescalate will fail because your opponent is committed to crushing you no matter what. Together with institutional inertia, this tends to keep negative-sum conflicts going for a long time.

My impression is that Iran is fomenting Shiite unrest throughout the Middle East, including in the Persian Gulf.

Sure. Iran is one of several regional players using ethnic tensions to advance their influence. For example, Daesh ('ISIS') was Sunni, as was Al-Qaida. It is perfectly reasonable to be against religious terrorists both when they are funded by Iran and by Saudi-Arabia, though.

This implicates vital American interests.

This is not literally true. If Iran takes over the whole ME, that will not cause a single American to starve. Ukraine has a vital interest that Putin does not take Kiev.

The interests of the US in the ME are hegemonic. That does not mean that they are invalid -- being a hegemon is a good deal for the US voters, generally, and also for some of your client states (e.g. in Europe).

The problem is that it is hard to know if a deescalation would be reciprocated.

In this case, it's not that hard to know. Israel clearly has the power to roll in and crush Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.

This is not literally true. If Iran takes over the whole ME, that will not cause a single American to starve.

If food is the only consideration, then sure. But at the moment oil is also a vital resource. And I'm sure you are aware that a major fraction of the world's oil comes from the Persian Gulf region.

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