site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8711 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 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.

As for mining, if Iran mines the straits while their oil production is still active, they've cut themselves off from oil sales. Mines have no IFF, and the Iranians have only one filling terminal outside the straits, which the US could easily destroy from the air.

What’s the logic here? They can (and are) still shipping oil from the port not in the Strait (Jask I think). The US can bomb it, sure, but then the shaheds start bombing Saudi, Emirati, Kuwaiti etc oilfields without inhibition, which is far worse for America and its allies than it is for Iran (which is already fighting an existential war if you’re a senior regime figure) - and which the GCC specifically doesn’t want to happen. Even worse, they might go all in and start bombing gulf desalination plants, at which point you guarantee a humanitarian crisis.

Iran can mine the straits, keep shipping oil from the Gulf of Oman, and dare the US to do something. If America attacks, they go for the jugular and attack Gulf oilfields directly and devastatingly. If they don’t, they get away with it. No good options absent a deal, which they don’t seem to want to do.

shaheds

Shaded are total and utter shit. Russia needed almost 3 years to make something usable out of them. The latest Gerans seem to be doing well in Ukraine, but they are so heavily modified - there is almost nothing in them.

If America attacks, they go for the jugular and attack Gulf oilfields directly and devastatingly.

There is nothing shown so far to imply that they have the capacity. So far - every launcher they use is single use only.

Jask is low capacity as well as vulnerable. Even if the US doesn't take it out, it doesn't provide Iran much of a lifeline. Iran could fire Shaheds at oilfields, but Shaheds aren't exactly unstoppable, and anyway if the Straits are mined, destroying some oil infrastructure doesn't add much additional pain. They could go all out on Gulf desalination plants, but realistically that hurts the war effort not one bit. Note most of Saudi Arabia's desalination plants are on the west coast.

Iran can mine the straits, keep shipping oil from the Gulf of Oman, and dare the US to do something.

Ah, yes, daring Trump to do something will totally make him back down.

It’s just not true that people haven’t called Trump’s bluff. Plenty of people have, including over tariffs, when China did.

if the Straits are mined, destroying some oil infrastructure doesn't add much additional pain

Surely it prevents export from Saudi Arabia’s western ports?

Surely it prevents export from Saudi Arabia’s western ports?

Only if you hit enough of it.

Even worse, they might go all in and start bombing gulf desalination plants, at which point you guarantee a humanitarian crisis.

There were headlines about strikes on desalination plants a few days ago. We might already be here.

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