site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   28043 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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.

This is a ludicrous assessment. Iran caved to Trump’s threats, and if they don’t give him what he wants the bombings will pick right back up in two weeks. Trump played a game of chicken, and Iran blinked first.

The best part about this ceasefire is how easy it is to spin in either direction. Everyone gets to feel like a winner!

"Iran has won, they've proven beyond a doubt that they hold the ultimate card, closing the straits. They made the USA come to the table and knock off the bombing."

"Iran has gotten cucked, we bombed them so hard they cracked and agreed to open the straits without us having to do anything but sit back and bomb them, so much for their leverage"

"Iran agreed to open the straits that were already open before this debacle" is a laughable spin attempt.

If there are actualll tolls imposed on and paid by ships, and a material amount of that money actually ends up in accounts the Iranians can control as they see fit, I would call an Iranian win. But that's a lot of "if this then that" to get that stream of cashflows into Iran.

Also we'll see what they give up on re: nuclear and missile programs.

We shall see!

I suspect either case here spurs the construction of additional pipelines and routes traffic around Hormuz: even if it were to make sense short term to pay, it'd be foolish to leave that leverage on the table going forward. Of course, not all the states involved have clear routes for doing that alone, so there may be some diplomatic reshuffling.

There will 100% be more pipelines as a result of this.

This might be the first time I've seen someone actually engage in Zeno's paradox as an argument.

Zeno's paradox

I'm familiar with this paradox but unsure how it fits here

You said

But that's a lot of "if this then that" to get that stream of cashflows into Iran.

But your list of "a lot of ifs" seems mostly like dividing the single statement "if they toll the strait" into an infinite number of steps

If there are actual tolls imposed on and paid by ships, and a material amount of that money actually ends up in accounts the Iranians can control as they see fit...

You could add an arbitrary number of similar "if" statements into any payment of money for services. "If the money is paid in legal tender," "if traffic doesn't decrease significantly," "if the world remains dependent on fossil fuel exports from the gulf" etc

Ahh

I guess I was trying to differentiate between "what was said now in this deal no one should trust" and it actually happening at scale.

"Don't count your chickens" type situation.

Especially because the language of the ceasefire seemed that the money would be split by Iran/Oman and be used for fixing shit that got blown up. So it's not clear to me if Iran will even get any money, even though all the pro-Iran/Anti-USA people are all doing this face right now 🤑

I know which take I'm more partial to. The low IQ, deeply narcissistic chicken Trump and the US look more like the humbled party here, despite the blustering PR.

Iran have been established as a bigger player with control over the strait (and taxation paid in non-USD) and the world economy and they didn't even have to be the aggressor to achieve it.

Their nuclear ambitions are not ended.

The US tried to get the Kurds to attack the regime by giving them weapons and the Kurds remembered how unreliable US support is and said "thanks for the stuff, now fuck off".

China + Iran + Russia are strengthened.

The US tried to get the Kurds to attack the regime by giving them weapons and the Kurds remembered how unreliable US support is

Genuinely one of the best parts of this whole disaster.

I love the Kurds, they seem great. I'm still so fucking mad we abandoned them.

I'm really happy for them, I hope they use the weapons well.

China + Iran + Russia are strengthened.

“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans Americans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

Damn, if Trumpian foreign policy is really strengthening China / Iran / Russia, I’d hate to see what a foreign policy that actually damages them looks like.

Iran / Russia, absolutely not. I mean I don't know if Trump has done much either way to Russia, they seem to be quite good at shooting off their own feet.

China? Unfathomably yes

Not just Trump either, China has been raking in geopolitical W's since covid.

Despite being an autocratic state more than happy to leverage its power internally/externally whenever they can get away with it, when compared to Trump China gets to pretend they're the sane rational reliable power player.

Now let's look at Russia v Ukraine and USA v Iran

Russia v Ukraine:

China's two biggest weaknesses are food and fuel. Less food these days. Russia is one of the largest producers of both of those things and they share a land border.

Russia is deeply weakened by this war. Huge disaster for them. The west is smartly* bleeding them out by arming Ukraine.

  • However, a weak Russia is incredibly accretive to China. Then they're just a cucked gas station. The Sino Soviet split was good. We want Russia and China both competing to be the big dog of Eurasia. A Russia that has been burned and excommunicated from the West is a little brother to China. Huge strategic win.

Maybe having Russia incorporate into the West more post '91 was 100% impossible, and Putin is a chimpout retard for sure. But we (the West) didn't even try we just victory lapped them over and over again and now here we are, basically setting up a vassal state for China to squeeze for unblockadable raw materials.

USA v Iran

  1. the USA has expended a TON of Tomahawks, JASSM-ER, and many many more offensive and defensive PGMs that are made in artisanal quantities. Big win for China for the next 5 years.

  2. the USA looks like violent retards to much of the world. "Fuck the rest of the world, we don't need them" you might say. Which is somewhat true. But a terrible strategy to contain China.

  3. oil shocks increase demand for EVs but this wasn't a very big one.

I think it would look more decisive than leaving their ally effectively in charge of 20% of the world's energy.

Control? With what military? They’ve lost enormous amounts of materiel, by some estimates a super majority of their navy and Air Force. It might take them years to replace all the lost vehicles and trained personnel.

And the United States Military could just keep mowing the proverbial grass indefinitely as long as political will holds. American military capability is barely strained with type of fighting.

Two weeks isn’t very long.

Are you trying to say they do not have the power to close the strait? Have you paid attention to the last 6 weeks in the news? Only a few ships were let through, at Iran's behest. The world is headed for a food crisis due to the lack of fertilizer.

Iran don't need much of a navy or military to do it. The threat of attack alone is enough to make insurance fall away and most ship captains won't run the gauntlet at any price.

Iran still has missile, drone and mine laying capability and it'll be extremely hard to get rid of it.

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