site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15611 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why would America let Iran toll the strait when we just destroyed the navy Iran would use to do it? It doesn’t even make any sense and somehow I’m the outrageous one for adding two and two to get four

Because the US lost. The Islamic Republic survived the worst we could do without invading, and closed the strait too. And the US isn't willing to invade to force the strait. So now the US has to give up something to get the strait back open. And Iran rebuilds everything including its navy and nuclear program in a few months, because without California-inspired regulation, that can actually be done very quickly.

Or, at least, that's how it will be if Iran gets its 10-point program.

The Islamic Republic survived the worst we could do without invading

We destroyed most of their army and the whole world freaked out when Trump threatened to do more than that. America has total escalation dominance.

Or, at least, that's how it will be if Iran gets its 10-point program.

That's not what was on the table apparently though.

Anyway, call me an optimist but I think this might be a great opportunity for everyone. My guess is that Trump is going to seize on the opportunity of negociation to go for the razzle-dazzle again, like he did with North Korea, to try and get Iran onside. Expect a tasteless video pitch about how Teheran could become the new Atlantic City. And without China breathing down their neck like for North Korea, I think it might actually work with Iran (well, not the details, but the bringing them onside). Iran pretty isolated by now, there isn't any Soviet Union anymore, Russia has revealed itself in the Ukraine war to not even be as dominating of a local power as was believed, let alone a world superpower. The middle east, except for Iran's proxy militias, are now on team western world order. Countries smaller and weaker than Iran can, as the Venezuela exepdition shows, likely be turned around on dime by the US if there's the will to do it, and China is pretty ambivalent about it all. Negociating with Trump will feel different to them than negociating with "the US" as it was for the last half century, and with their resistance in the war they have an opportunity to make a real deal that will preserve their dignity. The population largely would welcome it, so it's not like they'd be pissing off the people and risk a revolution. It'd probably be a win-win scenario here (though their proxies would be the big losers). So I don't know, I think there's actually a good chance for a transformative change.

Trump's North Korea negotiations were a failure that left the status quo in place. Iran looks to be turning out to worse than that -- status quo except Iran has new leadership and effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz. The only way around that seems to be for the US to actually invade, and it doesn't look like they will. As long as Iran thinks they've won, they'll give up nothing (including the Strait) and the only way to make them think otherwise is invasion.

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