site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9370 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The US needs to re-open the strait for several reasons.

  1. Having Iran in control makes a case for Iran having won.

  2. The US's Gulf allies need the strait open. Saudi Arabia can redirect most, but not all of its oil elsewhere, but Kuwait cannot.

  3. Iran tolling the strait helps Iran rebuild its weapons programs, which means the job isn't done.

  4. Sustained high oil prices will hurt Trump domestically, despite the US being a net exporter; there's a lot more gasoline buyers than oil company workers.

The hypothesis that the US would destroy the Iranian regime but leave the strait closed or tolled doesn't make sense. Either the new Iranian regime would have to keep the strait closed by force (in which case it's the enemy), or Oman (in coalition with the rest of the GCC, probably) and the new Iranian regime and the US would have to agree to do so in violation of long-standing treaties, which seems unlikely. That would throw freedom of navigation worldwide into utter chaos, which the US has long considered against its interests.

There's one way of threading the needle, which is that the US beats back the Iranian regime but they can still fire a few missiles or drones from a distance (which can be shot down with high probability). In that case the P&I cartel might decide to continue their effective blockade, at which point the US can probably spin up and certify a new insurer, effectively collecting the same "toll" the P&I clubs used to. This would require utter stupidity on the part of the cartel, but given what Europe has been doing lately, it's not impossible.

Counterplan: Stop the war, and abandon US involvement in the Middle East more broadly.

  1. Doesn't matter much politically since Trump can just emphasize how much destruction was wrought on Iran and MAGA will buy it while the Dems would never buy any explanation he would ever give anyways. MAGA has been very accommodating to Trump in this war, and the isolationist excuse of "we're not the world police any more" is right there.
  2. Doesn't matter much if the US abandons the Middle East.
  3. Doesn't matter much if the US abandons the Middle East.
  4. Higher oil prices hurt a little bit in the short term, but in the medium term more oil producers will come online if oil prices remain high, and the US can more efficiently deal with high oil prices through electrification subsidies, which would be a far more efficient use of money than everything we've spent on Middle East adventures in the past few decades.

All this assumes a relatively worst-case scenario of Iran remaining ascendant afterwards and other countries not reacting. In practical terms it's likely that a coalition of Gulf nations come in and try to deal with Iran tolling the straits if it's clear the US won't. They're just free-riding now because they think the US will spend the blood and treasure so they don't need to.

Doesn't matter much politically since Trump can just emphasize how much destruction was wrought on Iran and MAGA will buy it while the Dems would never buy any explanation he would ever give anyways. MAGA has been very accommodating to Trump in this war, and the isolationist excuse of "we're not the world police any more" is right there.

It's not the MAGA that's the issue, it's the neocon elites that would be cause trouble here. We'd probably see the home front revert into Trump-I state, possibly worse.

IMO it doesn't make sense long term for other Gulf states to accept Iran unilaterally defecting and seizing control of Hormuz shipping. They are at least as capable of blocking traffic and there is no reason to let Iran's ships through unless theirs do too, unless they're accepting it for short-term reasons (international relations on oil prices, expecting long-term gains via regime change, maybe others).

Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response. I'm sure US ROE won't allow naval mining in this conflict ("free navigation", you say), but it's less clear that this would bind KSA or UAE.

But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.

Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response.

Except that Iran could then respond by destroying most of the oil infrastructure of the GCC. This is MAD, of course, but MAD doesn't work against an actually-fanatic opponent.

But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.

Maybe. Won't know until it concludes.

What's strange here is the degree of distance from what's obviously reasonable and necessary to do, and what's been said by the Trump admin in the last day or so. More troops and planes (A-10) have been moved into position. "Watch the feet" is a sports term that tells you to weight actions/movements a lot higher than cheap words and appearances.

However the communications are totally different from what you'd expect before a major escalation. And no one can put it past Trump to declare victory when he has achieved no such thing and has effectively left the rest of the world in the lurch, and strengthened Russia by pretty much announcing the end of the US in NATO...

The communications from Trump are almost 100% market manipulation. Like, what on Earth is he even talking about here?

Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!

Iran’s president is Masoud Pezeshkian. He has been in office since 2024. He is still alive. Did he mean the new Supreme Leader Khamenei? It doesn’t really sound like it. He’s just making shit up.

The bull case for Trump here (and I have a bridge for sale if you take his words at full face value) seems to be that they've, uh, "replaced" enough political-side leadership that the current folks there are willing to make a viable deal (details unclear), but the IRGC isn't willing to go along with that and intends to keep fighting, which is why all the recently announced targets are it's leadership. Some sort of civil war or standoff between domestic powers sounds plausible there. I don't claim to know any specifics, but it does seem they're trying to avoid destroying economic assets that would be valuable for a future regime (Kharg, as one example).

But I'm certainly not the expert to listen to on this topic.

I think the point is to delegitimize the regime, he will declare soon who that "New Regime President" is and the hope is that iranians are going to go along with it.

I suppose Grand Ayatollah Shmeza Pahlavian is being loaded onto a sealed train car in Yrevan as we speak.

"Watching the feet" tells me there's going to be a major escalation in the near future -- I actually suspect it's been delayed by the problems with the Ford. I expect an invasion of the strait islands (everyone talks about Kharg, but Kharg is useless without the strait and un-needed with it, so if Iran has actually reinforced it as they claim, I would guess they just get more bombing) and maybe the coastline near Bandar Abbas. If this succeeds the US will (after doing minesweeping and patrolling the coast for hidden marine drones and such) declare the strait open, and the next move will belong to the P&I cartel.

everyone talks about Kharg, but Kharg is useless without the strait and un-needed with it

Kharg is a bargaining chip. It's only useful to Iran, iw basically vital to their long-term economy, and can be visibly taken and returned in a way "the strait" cannot.

There's no gain to taking it. If we want to stop Iranian oil we can do a blockade of Iran and stop the (defenseless) tankers in the Gulf of Oman with much less trouble. If we don't want to stop Iranian oil, we don't need to take Kharg. It's important to Iran, but it's not vital long-term; they could build other export facilities. Anyway, the regime obviously isn't interested in bargaining.

Maybe I'm underestimating you guys, but Kharg seems a bit dangerous. Even the strait Islands feel risky. I've seen someone make the argument they're likely to go for the coast just before the strait. It apparently is inhabited mostly by some Persian-unfriendly ethnic minority, so should be easier to hold.

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