site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   20954 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I really don't see the benefit here, karg is just their oil export terminal. All of kargs oil has to go through the strait, which iran has closed anyway. They've already determined they can last without oil exports from karg. Karg is useless without the ability to export oil from there and iran already isn't. This logic has real "we're taking kursk as a bargining chip in negotiations" energy. How did that work out?

They are still sending their own oil out of the Strait. Mainly to China.

No they aren't, they're sending it out their port just outside the strait at chabahar.

No, the Jask port does not have sufficient capacity. They are still also loading at Kharg Island.

Yes, I know that port doesn't have capacity for all of irans oil. No, that doesn't mean they're sending it through the strait, it's just not getting out. You can look up transits of the strait, theres barely anything going through and mostly not oil tankers.

The benefit is leverage in peace negotiations, and if there is peace the strait won’t be closed anymore. The Karg island facilities are extremely valuable to Iran in peacetime, which makes them worth taking in times of war.

Alternatively, the conflict never really ends and it's gitmo east.

Alternatively, the conflict never really ends and it's gitmo east.

Yeah, I think Trump likes the idea of territorial expansion. Is it feasible to build a naval base there? And if so, does that reduce the need of the United States to locate facilities in places like Bahrain?

Iran has not "closed" the strait in normal terms. They have apparently not mined it, despite some claims that they would. Thet can still get their own oil through. What they're doing is taking shots, with drones, at other ships which transit it.

So it's not closed but they'll attack anything that goes through it? Sounds closed to me.

It's probably the case that in a military conflict shipping could pass through it. What won't go through is ordinary commercial shipping, because it isn't worth it. It's the difference between "Iran can get almost every single ship passing through" and "I'm not risking my oil tanker for no real reason."

So it's for all intents and purposes closed to shipping?

There's some wiggle room when hegseth says that it's not closed, and there's also no oil going through it. At some point ships are going to try it in volume and that's the test, isn't it?

Insurers still won't cover it, but supposedly the federal government is working on backstopping losses to get it moving again.

Irans sinking ships docked at port. I don't think anyones questioning whether they'd shoot at blockade runners.

Backstopping losses probably isn't going to make as much of a difference as they think. It's uninsurable for a reason. I carry a lot of insurance on my car, but that doesn't mean I'm going out in an ice storm. Insurance is a consolation prize for unfortunate events, not a license to take on excessive risks. "Captain, we want you to take this ship into a war zone. There's a good likelihood you'll be blown to bits, but don't worry, we'll be sure to send a ham to your widow."

I'd imagine most oil tanker crewmen are braver men than me, but if they told me I was sailing through there... I'd hop out and swim to shore.

I highly suspect the few ships that have transited are paying bribes in crypto to IRGC grand poobahs. Which might be the ultimate result of the whole thing.

Unless you're a madman with equally mad employees

https://see.news/greek-oil-tanker-crosses-strait-of-hormuz-amid-heightened-risks

They'll attack anything not theirs going through it. (That they can see, anyway, and I'm not convinced that applies to much more than "ships broadcasting their location") That's a rather big difference.

Again, just look at the chart I posted, not even their own ships are going through. Unless you think iran only exported 1 tanker a day of oil?

Yes, per international blockade rules (unless applied to the Germans in WWI), it's "closed" (although the blockade rules may have changed, I recall Russia/Ukraine being a bit odd compared to what I remember, but that may have just been dumb takes on the internet). Now, it could be more effectively closed, by mines, in the same way building a giant sea wall, having 52 Reaper drones permanently hovering, or having 18 Iowa-classes moored stem-to-stern across it would more effectively close it, but it's still "closed" without that.

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