site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9707 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 23, 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'm sorry, can we just cut the bullshit? The US kidnaps the leader of Venezuela and then forbids them from shipping oil to Cuba. Then it strongarms Mexico into stopping oil shipments to Cuba. No matter how you try to rationalize this, it is certainly not more normal than Iran's restrictions on the Strait.

Iran is fighting an asymmetric war for its survival. The only two possibilities were ever immediate surrender or blockading the Strait. Most likely the Friday timing of the attack on Iran was intended to wrap up the war before the markets even opened by Monday in the best case scenario. But I find it hard to tolerate people complaining about Iran acting in a way that's unprecedented or unpredictable, when it's neither of those things. If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.

All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that.

It took me a moment to find the article, but the Americans have no formal oil embargo on Cuba from Venezuela.

It's not a rationalization: it's an objective fact, and you are the one who is full of shit. You're a third worldist who is upset that a communist nation is not getting free gibs. The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence. Mexico can quite easily sell to Venezuela at below-market rates. Why don't they?

Is because, I don't know, they want to make money, and not give away gibs?

@SecureSignals is many things, but "third worldist," probably not. To figure out why he cares about Cuba and what his position is, you need to ask how Jews are involved.

That said, namecalling and telling people they are full of shit is over the line.

The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence.

Cuban hyper-agency! Do you think that US sanctions played any role in this state of affairs?

As nice as it would be, the United States is not actually capable of trashing an economy by withholding trade. There are other countries out there that Cuba can trade with. If they had a system that worked, they could have enough funds to buy gas. Cutting off trade obviously isn’t great for their economy, but if they managed their country well it would just be a drag on growth.

There are other countries out there that Cuba can trade with.

Are you aware of how the sanctions actually work? Other countries who trade with Cuba also get penalised for violating the blockade. They've actually done remarkably well given their conditions, and even train enough doctors that they send them abroad to assist in natural disasters etc.

Are you aware of how the sanctions actually work? Other countries who trade with Cuba also get penalised for violating the blockade.

I'm not aware of how the sanctions work. Please tell me what penalties has the US imposed on China over the years for trading with Cuba? Similarly, what penalties has the US imposed on Mexico for trading with Cuba?

Also, what does the word "blockade" mean to you? Are you claiming that the US physically prevents ships from calling on Cuban ports?

The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates

Well and the fact the world's hegemon makes "wouldn't it be a shame if someone kneecapped your economy with tariffs if you sold oil to Cuba" noises whenever someone (Mexico) considers selling oil to Cuba at market rates.

https://amp.dw.com/en/cuba-hit-by-island-wide-blackout-amid-trump-oil-blockade/a-76385816

There is no Venezuelan oil going to Cuba; Mexico is being threatened with tariffs for sending oil to Cuba; Cuba has not received any oil in three months. The article you’re posting is talking about a hypothetical deal to be reached in the future with Cuba. No such deal has been enacted.

None of those things amount to a blockade, though. If any country really wanted to send oil to Cuba, they can do so.

Really? Kidnapping a president and threatening to wreck shows the US is willing to go pretty far to stop countries giving Cuba oil.

And risk US sanctions and tariffs? Not very likely.

Weird, it's almost like the US govt is using its array of hard and soft power to stop oil from arriving in Cuba. If only there was a word for that...

Iran doesn't have a formal oil embargo on the Strait either! You can cross, good luck getting insured, might want to reconsider it unless you pay IRGC $2 mil. But no formal oil embargo, for all that's worth.

The two situations could not be more different. Iran is a bridge troll while Cuba is an welfare case.

Since you've slipped my Cuba argument, I'm going to assume that you've conceded the point.

But the US still won't let people give oil to Cuba. Does it really matter they didn't buy it? The US was willing to kidnap a head of state to stop them giving oil to Cuba and put a huge amount of pressure in Mexico to stop them giving them oil. Cuba has plenty of friendly countries willing to give them oil and the US is doing everything possible including military action to stop that.

I'm just curious, do you admit the US government is consciously straining the Cuban oil supply in order to put political pressure on their regime? Or do you seriously think it's about curbing welfare fraud?

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