site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25559 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.

5
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?

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).

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.

I don't think he is seen as a martyr. The problem with the bombing is more that bombing schoolgirls is not the best way to be liked by the locals. I think the Trump administration expected Iran to go the same way as Venezuela: after a few days of bombing, the regime dies because there is a revolt, a coup or something. It's quite obvious they had no plan beyond bombing them for three days. And I think Venezuela could have gone badly in the exact same way as Iran.

Imagine the kidnapping does not go well, and kidnappers are taken or killed. Then the US military tries to get them back and is out of luck; a lot of americans get killed. It seems to me Venezuela/Iran are the same kind of bad ops, because it's high risk - low reward. The power the US can get over Venezuela through a simple kidnapping will only last until some coup or next elections. Was it worth risking a long and painful war with Venezuela?

Edit: and also, thx for your the information about hedging.

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