site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   2889 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some various thoughts about the whole thing with Iran. My apologies if much of this was already discussed before by others in previous Culture War threads.

  1. If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.
  2. Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.
  3. Iranian oil also got its sanctions lifted. This reminds me of how in a different war, the US government was fighting producers of products that US citizens enjoy. I am of the opinion this is another tally on the board for why the war preparation was incompetent.
  4. Talking about this being a war, it's actually a military operation. Not only does it reminds you of another military operation, this story once again underline the absolute weaksauce cowardliness of the US legislative branch in allowing this to happen. But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.
  5. Will the American people forget about Epstein?
  6. Aside from the various prices of things going up, we must be reminded that this year the US (and its neighbors actually) is hosting the World Cup! How will this World Cup be remembered? Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs? Game tickets are expensive as heck, a trip to America is expensive as heck, now everything will be even more expensive as heck as well!
  7. Five weeks ago, a ground war with Iran is unthinkable by the American people. Since then, that opinion has clearly changed. Is this what Chomsky calls "Manufactured Consent"? I've never read the book, and being from a communist country, my consent wasn't really needed either so I am unfamiliar with the process of it all.
  8. I think America will try to take one or a few islands.
  9. The Venezuela op was a masterclass. What conditions would allow Trump to declare victory? Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?

So. Why can't the US just get bored of blowing stuff up, declare mission accomplished and then leave without resolving the SOH?

Is Iran going to impose a permanent toll on the SOH anyway? Are they actually able to do this long term? Why didn't they figure this out until this month? Presumably they should have done this all along?

Something doesn't quite add up.

Because doing so would trigger a war like this and get the entire leadership killed. Now that the war has happened and the entire leadership killed there's no cost to doing it that's already been paid.

Conditions which the Iranians would agree to and stop firing weapons at all the people and countries attacking them or supporting attacks against them? I would guess something like:

  1. US Abandons all US bases in the Persian Gulf (relocated some to Israel)

  2. Removes all or most sanctions.

  3. Unfreezes Iranian Assets which the Iranians can label "reparations" and Trump can claim is buying the dopes off with their own money.

  4. Iran gets de facto control over Straight of Hormuz and they will collect tolls to use it (Oman will probably help) and will likely ban any traffic from US or Israeli affiliated ships.

Trump could just about face tomorrow, claim we've destroyed all their weapons and elementary schools, and that's what victory looks like, maybe the biggest victory ever, and just stop the war tomorrow. This will not stop the Iranians from attacking the Israelis and probably won't stop them from attacking any US assets still in the Persian Gulf, but the US could just leave.

Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?

No, every single thing will be strictly worse for the United States and Americans generally than it was on February 27th.

Nah, no one who cared about the Epstein files will forget about it because of Operation Epstein Fury for the Epstein class/Israel. It's these people who keep bringing it up and they still will and I would bet you will see messaging in the midterms about it.

If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally.

In short term, yes.

If the situation drags for longer, imported oil and LNG will be replaced by local coal. Coal resources are immense, coal mining and burning is proven 19th century technology, even the shithole parts of the world can handle it.

It already begins in Korea, the bellwether of the world.

The limit on coal-fired power plants will cease entirely, while that on nuclear power reactors will be loosened, as part of Seoul's response to the threat of an energy crisis due to conflict in the Middle East, the ruling Democratic Party of Korea said

Time to RETVRN to cozy 1970's East Germany.

edit: links

Talking about this being a war, it's actually a military operation. Not only does it reminds you of another military operation, this story once again underline the absolute weaksauce cowardliness of the US legislative branch in allowing this to happen. But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.

It is actually stupider and more evil than just "weaksauce cowardliness". The democrats all want war with Iran because they're compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex, and war with Iran serves both of those interests (or at least those interests seem to think that - who knows what will happen in the end). On the other hand, they know that their base absolutely despises the war with Iran and will refuse to vote for people who support it. That's why they're simply doing nothing and pretending that their hands are tied - because it allows them to get what they want (incredibly expensive bombs paid for by the US taxpayer blowing up schoolchildren who are in the way of Greater Israel) without having to damage their electoral support by actively supporting it.

Do you disagree with the more general legislative branch framing to specifically call out the democrats as evil? I imagine the "compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex" descriptor fits the political class in America in general, rather than just the Democrats. Hell, if we had to choose which side is more apt for the descriptor, I'd have chosen the Republicans. Furthermore, I thought the Republican base was supposed to be the ones who despise war with Iran more, as evidenced by the countless media campaigns and memes I've seen during the 2024 election season about Kamala wishing to start a war with Iran if elected, and the no-war president Donald Trump. So if any side is more duplicitous, I'd also say it's the Republicans. And let's not forget that they currently control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the presidency. Yet somehow the continuation of the Iran war is more evidence that the democrats are the dishonest evildoers.

Do you disagree with the more general legislative branch framing to specifically call out the democrats as evil? I imagine the "compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex" descriptor fits the political class in America in general, rather than just the Democrats.

No, I don't disagree with this - the entire legislative branch IS corrupt and compromised (except maybe a few small outliers). The reason I called out the democrats specifically is that they are ostensibly the opposition party and are meant to put a stop to wars like this.

Furthermore, I thought the Republican base was supposed to be the ones who despise war with Iran more, as evidenced by the countless media campaigns and memes I've seen during the 2024 election season about Kamala wishing to start a war with Iran if elected, and the no-war president Donald Trump. So if any side is more duplicitous, I'd also say it's the Republicans.

The republicans have betrayed their base to an immense degree, and that base agrees - the MAGA coalition has just about disintegrated at this point. The magnitude of their betrayal is probably larger than that of the democrats, but I'm sure in the alternate reality where the DNC won they would be betraying their base just as hard.

Yet somehow the continuation of the Iran war is more evidence that the democrats are the dishonest evildoers.

I actually did have an article which made the claim that the democrats know that their base hates the war but they want to support it anyway, but as far as I can tell that article is now paywalled and I can't find it anymore. But yes, it is evidence that the democrats are dishonest evildoers - just not THE dishonest evildoers.

It's more that they're worried that one of two things will happen:

-- The Special Military Operation will work, and they'll look like naysayers

-- Iran will do something so horrible that you don't want to look like you were defending them

I mean if the IRGC sets off a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, that actually makes the war a worse idea than when it was started, but it makes anything that sounds like sympathy for Iran look bad.

I based my claim on an article which is now paywalled and hence unable to be used as a source which claimed these were the actual motivations in question. But that said...

The Special Military Operation will work, and they'll look like naysayers

I highly doubt this will happen.

Iran will do something so horrible that you don't want to look like you were defending them

Yea, just imagine how awful it would be if they did something terrible like blow up a school full of young girls or destroyed a major petroleum stockpile in a populated residential area, causing immense ecological damage and health consequences for people forced to breathe in black rain! Who could possibly defend monsters that would commit such atrocities?

I mean if the IRGC sets off a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, that actually makes the war a worse idea than when it was started

Speak for yourself - Tel Aviv getting blown up is one of the few positives to emerge from this conflict in my view.

Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs?

Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?

The Venezuela op was a masterclass.

Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.

Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?

Things will still be shaking out but this is a black swan event (or at least an event few if any prepared for). A quick chat with gemini says:

However, many U.S. airlines—most notably American, Delta, and United—largely stopped hedging years ago for several reasons:

  • The "Loser" Risk: If an airline locks in fuel at $100/barrel and the market price drops to $70, they are stuck paying the higher price while their competitors enjoy cheaper fuel and can lower ticket prices.
  • High Costs: Hedging isn't free. It requires paying premiums (like insurance) or tying up massive amounts of cash.
  • The "Natural Hedge": Most major carriers now believe that when fuel prices go up, they can simply raise ticket prices because the entire industry is facing the same cost increase.

The Exception: Southwest Airlines is famous for continuing a robust hedging program. While others are reeling from the current price spike caused by the conflict in the Middle East, Southwest often has a significant portion of its fuel locked in at much lower, pre-war prices, giving them a massive competitive advantage right now.

I asked for sources and the best one is "U.S. Airline Fuel Hedging: The End of an Era" which actually pointed out Southwest has abandoned the program in 2024, but their positions will mature until 2027.

Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.

I think the Venezuela op is clearly different from the Iranian op and is not different rolls of the same game. One is a surgical kidnapping, one has just been continual bombing. I think there is something to be said how Israel is on the side edging America on, and very willing to dish some on their own. Imagine if the Ayatollah was kidnapped instead of being made a martyr.

Yes, at some level, everything is the same game. But macro/micro for me is a range. And at some point in that range, Iran and Venezuela are two different games. Venezuela was a great idea, executed excellently, and I do think it will pay long term benefits to US if handled well (Teddy Roosevelt would be proud). Iran is a different game, it was not a good idea, it wasn't executed well, and it's still being played so it's hard to know what the long term results are (as a casual observer though, I believe it's getting worse by the day. But then again, one ethics class in college is the extent of my social studies in this direction).

Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.

What worries me about is to what extent Russia can prop up Iranian anti-ship capabilities cheaply. It would be very much in Russia's interests to keep the strait closed as long as possible, it harms their enemies and helps Russia. Every air defense capability sent to the gulf is one not sent to Ukraine. Buying Russian oil and propping up Russia becomes the lesser evil compared to surrendering to Iran. They don't need to give the Mullahs the bomb or supply their whole war effort, just keep a trickle of drones and missiles coming in to prevent a total degradation of Iranian launch capabilities. Keep Hormuz' legs crossed, and the more both sides destroy more oil infrastructure the more the price premium Russian oil will demand for months or years afterward.

I think the two complications for Russia in helping Iran are as follows:

  1. The Russian government's actions over the course of the last decade show that it values having friendly relations with Israel and the Arab Gulf States even while having hostile relations with the United States. I don't know to what extent this policy is motivated by geopolitics and to what extent it is motivated by shady financial interests of the Russian elite. In the case of Israel, the friendly relations are also probably motivated in part by the fact that just like America, Russia has many Jewish elites, and that Israel has many Jews from a Russian background.

  2. Russia can ship things to Iran across the Caspian Sea without the ships being attacked. However, the US/Israel have very good surveillance and spying capacity, so they can probably accurately target that stuff as soon as gets into Iranian hands. This is similar to how things work in the Ukraine war, where the Russians don't bomb supplies while they are in NATO countries (with the possible exception of some alleged sabotage operations), but as soon as the supplies cross the border into Ukraine, Russia feels free to target them.

The Russian government's actions over the course of the last decade show that it values having friendly relations with Israel and the Arab Gulf States even while having hostile relations with the United States. I don't know to what extent this policy is motivated by geopolitics and to what extent it is motivated by shady financial interests of the Russian elite. In the case of Israel, the friendly relations are also probably motivated in part by the fact that just like America, Russia has many Jewish elites, and that Israel has many Jews from a Russian background.

One darkly humorous part of the whole China/Russia/Iran is how each of them very clearly wish they had different allies and aren't exactly shy about it. China always hedging between Russia/EU and Iran/Sunnis/Israelis, Iran originally preferring European companies over Chinese companies, and the above behavior from Russia. Rumors of Axis 2.0 are overstated.

What worries me about is to what extent Russia can prop up Iranian anti-ship capabilities cheaply.

Zero. Russian Naval Warfare have always been a joke. Shipping from Russia to Tehran is hard. And you need to actually train people. Which takes time. So they probably don't have much to give, will have hard time bringing it in and by the time iranians are ready to use it will be over one way or another.

It's not difficult to ship things to Tehran. Russians can and do regularly ship lots of things down the Volga River, across the Caspian Sea, and into Amiribad or Anzali. Recently, in the last few years Russia and Iran have drastically increased the facilities and volume of trade on the Caspian Sea.

And you don't need to train anyone. You can just have Russia soldiers manning the equipment, just like they did and have done in proxy wars for a long time using whatever schemes like "mercenaries" and whatever else to cover it up, e.g., the pilots flying Migs in Vietnam were regularly Russians and the people manning AD in Vietnam were regularly Russians and they were a big reason why B-52 were being shredded and why Operation Linebacker II was the last operation Linebacker.

Not that I think the Iranians would do that; agreeing to use Russian weapons means Russian conditions and Iran already watched Syria be destroyed because it relied on Russia and Russia allowed it to bleed until it was rotten from the inside out.

It's not difficult to ship things to Tehran

If you are willing to walk on the seabed probably. But the moment you raise your head above the water there will be a friendly tomahawk or something similar waiting for you. Iran has zero opsec.

No, not really. The US is not going to attack a Russian ship on the Caspian Sea.

The main way the US/Israel would do something clandestine would be using Azerbaijan, but everything said about the fragile nature of the Iranian government is actually true about the Azerbaijan government and it would be easy for Iran to obliterate their oil facilities which would topple that government, something which Russia likely wouldn't oppose, and something the Iranians have already threatened if the Azeris allow their territory to be used again.

And even if that wasn't true, it wouldn't meaningfully stop trade to Iran.

If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.

This is me! I've been making that joke every time I talk politics with someone I meet out on the trail or the park. (I let them bring it up first, I'm not that autistic.)

It's a real winner; the libs get to laugh at how stupid cons are and the cons get to laugh at the absurdist nature of reality. Brings us all together!

If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.

This cuts both says. What would we all say if Biden unilaterally raised the price of oil to $100 in some (dubious?) climate crusade.

Maybe it's for a worthy cause, but then we're just negotiating on the price.

Maybe it's for a worthy cause, but then we're just negotiating on the price.

Pretty much. I've always been very convinced by number 5 in this NPR article on "Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)"

Five: Tax carbon emissions. Yes, that means higher gasoline prices. It's a kind of consumption tax, and can be structured to make sure it doesn't disproportionately harm lower-income Americans. More, it's taxing something that's bad, which gives people an incentive to stop polluting.

If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally. Definitely better than the effort that goes into doing Earth Day. Reminds me of Genghis Khan and being the "greenest invader" in history.

Trump: warrior for climate justice

There is a half decent case that Rockefeller and Standard Oil were responsible for a huge drop in whale oil consumption, which was good (not perfect) for whales.

If this goes on longer, the environment lobby should be really happy. There should be quite a significant drop in fossil fuel use globally

Unless China uses a few percent more coal.

Many have already pointed out that the biggest beneficiary of the war so far is Russia where both oil prices are seeing higher prices AND that their sanctions are dropped. At first glance, this should be bad news for Ukraine.

Definitely good for Russia, but I don't think cash is that big a bottleneck for Russia, so only mildly bad news for Ukraine.

Iranian oil also got its sanctions lifted.

Yes. Iranian oil is a double-edged sword; exporting it helps Iran, but also keeps oil prices and supply worries within reason. Also if Iran's oil is cut off, they can retailiae by throwing whatever is remaining at Gulf oil.

But maybe this is exactly what the American people want. Elections will certainly be spicy this midterm year.

For Trump to have this improve GOP chances, he needs to win outright -- new regime in Iran, doesn't matter how much they such as long as they'll play ball with the US and "Death to America" is off the playlist. I give this maybe a 5% chance; there just doesn't seem to be anyone in Iran capable of creating such a regime.

Five weeks ago, a ground war with Iran is unthinkable by the American people. Since then, that opinion has clearly changed.

Has it? Many of the earlier polls excluded special operations troops.

I think America will try to take one or a few islands.

Or possibly all of them.

The Venezuela op was a masterclass. What conditions would allow Trump to declare victory? Would a victory Trump can declare be a good thing for America long term?

The big win would be regime change. No mullahs, no IRGC, no "Death to America". Doesn't matter to the US if it's a military dictatorship, a democracy (LOL) or a restoration of the monarchy (double LOL), as long as they play ball.

Lacking that, the existing regime playing ball. Stop attacking Hormuz, stop supplying the Houthis (Hezbollah and Hamas matter to Israel but not the US), hand over the enriched uranium and allow US inspections.

No mullahs, no IRGC, no "Death to America".

A minor aside, I often wonder to what extent we should idiomatically translate "Death to X" as "Fuck X" instead. In the same way that an American saying "Fuck Iran" should be translated to a Persian as "Death to Iran" and not "I would like to have intercourse with Iran."

In the case of #2, are the sanctions fully removed or is it just the restrictions/effective embargo on their energy and oil that’s been removed? American foreign policy is so schizophrenic and the administration changes its policy directives so much I’ve quit bothering to even follow it.

The US waiver, active for one month, will let countries buy up Russian oil which, under current sanctions, has been floating at sea, unable to be sold. ... Bessent has insisted that Russia will only see a limited financial boost from the sale of the oil, while the move addressed the "instability posed by the terrorist Iranian regime".

However, Benjamin Hilgenstock, head of macroeconomic research and strategy at the Kyiv School of Economics, argued the move was "a serious bailout" for Putin's regime.

He estimated monthly Russian oil exports could be boosted by around $10bn (£7.5bn), with half of this being paid in tax straight into the government's coffers.

source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2871wyz9ko

just oil.

  1. Yep
  2. Also yes
  3. Ditto
  4. Unfortunately yes as well
  5. No, not for those of us paying attention
  6. Who cares
  7. No, I don’t think opinions have changed much; still a stupid idea
  8. Which ones?
  9. Doesn’t matter. Trump has dissolved his own coalition, and there’s no getting it back at this point

Doesn’t matter. Trump has dissolved his own coalition, and there’s no getting it back at this point

Betting against Trump being lucky as fuck so far has bad track record. The guy can fuck up the surest thing ever and can win any doom situation.

"Ah well. Nevertheless."

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