site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26578 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 don't dodge it, I just deem it to be a cope.

I would agree that it's a cope to point to it as a success if the other elements of the settlement end up poorly for the US, but if the US had said "our only goal is to sink the Iranian navy," the operation would be a success goals-wise (not necessarily a strategic victory in the big scheme of things, since succeeding at dumb goals can be bad). So if that was a goal, it ought to be counted.

It's a cheap way to pad the metrics by announcing a thing you're confident about as the goal.

And omitting it is a cheap way to overstate your case and obscure the actual outcomes of the war, the same as when pro-Trump people omit the damage done to US bases by Iranian ballistic missiles.

Iranian objectives, on the contrary, were to survive, preserve the status quo, and hopefully improve on it by getting sanctions relief.

Wouldn't you say that Iran also intended (and quite plausibly still hopes) to establish a strait toll regime as a war goal? I would agree with you if you said that it was a stretch goal or seemed like part of a motte-and-bailey play, but don't you think that was also on their bucket list as a war objective?

Agreed that this is very premature given previous fake-out "deals".

On this we agree.

allows me to say that Iran won.

This is where I disagree. I actually think it's too soon to rule out a Venezuela-like ending to this thing, for Iran. Not that I would bet on it, necessarily. I think both countries are basically going to try to get as much as they can out of the post-MOU bargaining and possibly they are both betting that the other guy will blink on some things they really want.

If, say, negotiations break down and the US resumes high-intensity strikes, that'll be a separate arc. I'm not saying Iran won forever.

And maybe this is why I disagree: from my point of view, the MOU is a temporary ceasefire instrument to be replaced by something more permanent or (as Trump and I think also Iran) have warned, a return to war.

And omitting it is a cheap way to overstate your case

This is a fair outsider perspective but I stand by my arguments for why it's valid to omit.

Wouldn't you say that Iran also intended (and quite plausibly still hopes) to establish a strait toll regime as a war goal?

There has, to my knowledge, never been a serious Iranian discussion of the toll regime (as opposed to just closing the Strait) before this war which they did not choose. They rolled out tolls as a financial cope and negotiating tactic well under attack, after they learned that Hormuz denial is indeed very effective even though their fleet is gone. I tend to agree with Noah Smith of all people that "Before the war, Iran didn’t control the strait, simply because it didn’t realize it could. Drone technology had advanced to the point where Iran was able to shut down Hormuz, but Iran didn’t know that until the U.S. attack forced it to try the risky and desperate move of actually shutting down the strait.". Of course, war aims can change, so now they pursue legitimization of the toll booth through MOU negotiations, because come on, it's an awesome new revenue source and influence lever. But it was not part of their core objectives and strategic thinking (and neither was sinking their Navy for the US). To be clear I think they might win this, too, but I wouldn't weigh it heavily either way.

from my point of view, the MOU is a temporary ceasefire instrument to be replaced by something more permanent

Guess I have to agree to disagree. The MOU is extremely close to the original Iranian counter-proposal they published in response to Kushner&Witkoff's "deal" (terms of capitulation). That the US saw it fit to sign on to this shows that the US is really weary of the war and willing to end it on net unfavorable terms. Of course, Trump being Trump, he might just ignore the reputational damage and risks of Iranian gains solidifying for a few weeks of open Strait and US forces regrouping, and secretly intends to defect on most terms. But on the sum of evidence so far (eg Israel and Lebanon related noises), I do believe he strongly prefers to not continue in the short-medium term, so it is an end to, at least, the First US-Iran war, and the actual terms of it having been concluded.

I tend to agree with Noah Smith of all people that "Before the war, Iran didn’t control the strait, simply because it didn’t realize it could. Drone technology had advanced to the point where Iran was able to shut down Hormuz, but Iran didn’t know that until the U.S. attack forced it to try the risky and desperate move of actually shutting down the strait."

Well, Noah Smith (at least judging by this paragraph) is wrong to frankly an almost unbelievable degree. Iran has been aware that they could threaten to close the strait since the 1980s (at least), because you don't need drones to do that when you have mines. There was a major flare up where they specifically threatened to do so during the Obama administration. And they have been kicking the idea around of tolling the strait seriously since 2019 (at least).

That the US saw it fit to sign on to this shows that the US is really weary of the war and willing to end it on net unfavorable terms.

I think if the US was really desperate to end the war we wouldn't keep striking Iran.

Iran has been aware that they could threaten to close the strait since the 1980s (at least), because you don't need drones to do that when you have mines.

Noah is sloppy but this is irrelevant. Mines are, well, mines. Their control right now is qualitatively different, they can flexibly threaten ships, do it on and off, and importantly even while the USN is around and the country is getting bombed.

From your own link

Iran’s threat will not work. Here is why:

blah blah it's evil illegal

If Iran were to try, there would be a list of militaries willing and able to intervene. The U.S. has long taken on the task of ensuring freedom of the seas. And if the U.S. chose not to intervene, it could do so with the knowledge that other countries are more than capable. The navies of China, Japan or South Korea could intervene, but most likely they would not have to since Iran needs to maintain the east Asian countries as trading partners. They would likely convince Iran to change course by simply requesting it. India has already sent naval escorts to protect its vessels in the area. Otherwise, the Gulf countries whose oil trade would be impacted could intervene. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in particular, have formidable air forces with billions of dollars of aircraft and weapons purchased from the U.S. Moreover, the U.N. and other international organizations would turn on Iran as soon as it tried to invoke control over an international waterway.

How has that worked?

And I agree with Smith that they didn't know it would, and indeed thought it wouldn't.

Their control right now is qualitatively different, they can flexibly threaten ships, do it on and off, and importantly even while the USN is around and the country is getting bombed.

Iran's ability to use aircraft to attack ships in 2026 is not qualitatively different from their ability to use aircraft to attack ships in 1986. If anything it is quantitatively different.

From your own link

(The point of this link was to reference the fact that Iran has been kicking around the idea of tolling the strait for years).

And I agree with Smith that they didn't know it would, and indeed thought it wouldn't.

Why would you think this? The fact that Iran could substantially disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been known and discussed and acknowledged publicly for decades.

Iran's ability to use aircraft to attack ships in 2026 is not qualitatively different from their ability to use aircraft to attack ships in 1986.

Are you for real. Their aircraft from 1986 is destroyed. The question is of what they can do and plan for in 2026. It turns out that their new "aircraft" works very well for this purpose. I think they didn't know it will, just like Americans didn't know it'd be so hard to shut down.

Or do you think there was an expectation that as soon as the US fails to topple Iran by killing some dudes, we'll enter this morass with strait blockade?

Are you for real. Their aircraft from 1986 is destroyed.

My sentence is expressing the fact that their ability to destroy ships with aircraft in the strait the year 2026 is not qualitatively different from their ability to destroy ships with aircraft in the strait the year 1986. It has nothing to do with whether their aircraft from '86 are still surviving or not. In a Strait scenario, a Shahed is not really qualitatively superior at destroying ships than the smart weapons technology Iran had purchased from the US during the Cold War, including strike fighters with precision-guided weapons and radar-guided anti-ship missiles.

The main advantage, I think, is quantitative: they have a lot of Shaheds, which are cheap and simple to operate.

Or do you think there was an expectation that as soon as the US fails to topple Iran by killing some dudes, we'll enter this morass with strait blockade?

While I think the exact degree to which they would be able to achieve this against US defenses was murky pre-war, I definitely do not think that US defense planners did not anticipate the possibility or fail to correctly assess that Iran had the ability to threaten strait traffic. The US government gambling that Iran wouldn't rather than that Iran couldn't seems much more likely to me.

(And again, Iran's actual capability to "close the strait" has been demonstrated to be marginal, so if the US Navy warplanners assessed that they would be able to clear the strait and escort ships through in the face of Iranian defenses, they were probably correct for a certain degree of risk - it would not surprise me if the Pentagon got the capability assessment of Iran more or less right but fumbled or failed to consider as outside of their area of competency the question of what degree of risk would be acceptable to the civilian market.)

I highly recommend reading up on some of the US Navy's problems with Iranian and Iraqi mines in the area to get an idea of the background and mindset the US military would be going into this with. The Iraqis laid a big minefield in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War and successfully hit a cruiser and an amphibious assault ship (basically, a pocket carrier). Those are essentially next-bests if you can't actually hit a real aircraft carrier.

On a quick Google, initial mineclearing operations in the Persian Gulf took nearly two months to clear lanes for shipping and mopping up took the better part of a year after the war concluded. So that gives you an idea of "how long will it take to clear the strait of mines" baseline the Pentagon would be operating from (although I suspect they have fancier tech now).

Quantity is its own quality, as is known. The reason this ability is qualitatively different is that the USN still can't stop it despite a lot of effort, whereas destroying their manned air force over the course of a few weeks would have been possible for US forces in 1986 and turned out trivial today. They could not, in fact, sustainably threaten the Strait with remote attacks before, and this matters in that only prolonged crisis of this kind can achieve their strategic goals (having the US compromise on the operation's objectives and instead walk away with cope).

it would not surprise me if the Pentagon got the capability assessment of Iran more or less right but fumbled or failed to consider as outside of their area of competency the question of what degree of risk would be acceptable to the civilian market

I guess that's possible.

although I suspect they have fancier tech now

I am not sure the US has even retained its peak capabilities in mine-sweeping, but we'll see.

Quantity is its own quality, as is known.

This I do agree with.

turned out trivial today

You're more confident in this than I am, which is interesting.

I am not sure the US has even retained its peak capabilities in mine-sweeping, but we'll see.

The US put ships through despite recent reports of mines being deployed, which tells you something. How much, I am not sure.

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