site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   19936 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.

What I am doing is noticing. I'm noticing that I am not the only one asking you to define victory, to define winning, to define "allow." You just keep repeating "We bombed Iran, we won!" And reasonable people are asking "What did that gain us?" "How does this change the situation?" And most importantly "Can you actually make a prediction with falsifiability?"

We destroyed 80-90% of Iran’s military, what else do you want me to say? They’re running out of drones and missiles and boats and they have very little left to oppose us with and we didn’t even destroy their oil refineries or power plants. You keep wishcasting this into a stupid opinion. But destroying Iran’s military is victory and was one of the major terms of the operation laid out in the beginning by Trump.

Your predictions are also not even incompatible with mine. Iran will never be allowed to acquire nukes, and it’s also possible that in five years they’ll take another crack at it. I don’t see how that would contradict what I’ve laid out. If a bank robber is locked up and later gets out and robs a bank again, you don’t say that jail was a failure and we should have let him roam free instead.

You are trying to box me into a very stupid and simplistic opinion and then expect me to sign up for my chastisement if everything isn’t a best-case scenario for all time. No, I refuse. I notice accurately that we have destroyed the vast bulk of Iran’s military and the peace deal will reflect that because America is winning. Everyone else here seems to think America lost because Iran is still making increasingly-impotent threats at passing merchant ships.

You criticized my prediction that Iran would not toll the strait. Ok, so you think they will be allowed to keep tolling the strait? When this doesn’t happen because America actually won the war will you admit I was right? An apology? Anything?

I have advanced a consistent position since the war began that America was obviously winning and everyone else was being silly. How else would we explain Iran accepting a ceasefire? They’re winning but willing to show mercy? This is obviously delusional which is why I keep repeating that we have destroyed so much of their military. And yet you and everyone here seems to accept that that doesn’t matter at all.

Yes, I think destroying their military "matters." You are ignoring every objection raised to pretend your dissenters are blind and not responding to points they have responded to.

So that's a no. There are no conditions in which you will consider yourself to have been wrong.

It's very easy to declare yourself the only one able to see the truth with such a posture.

Correct, because I’m right. America is beating Iran and the peace deal will obviously reflect this.

Since no matter what "peace deal" there is, you will say it's good, yes, you are just defining yourself to be correct no matter what.

This is cartoonish.

I’m making a prediction which you said I was too weasly to manage. Etc etc

Your "prediction" has no circumstances in which we could say it was wrong. I suppose if Iran literally conducts an atomic test, you might concede you were wrong about that (though I am not even confident of that: it seems you would spin it as "We did not allow them to do this until we did/until they snuck it past us, and obviously we will punish them for it and not let them actually use their nukes"). But otherwise, if we are in exactly the same place we are now a few years from now, you will say that's fine because we made our point and can always bomb them again. That, to me, is not a "victory." If you were actually willing to define victory and own that that's what you're saying-yes, we may be perpetually at war with Iran and we will have to keep doing this- then I would disagree with you that that is a favorable outcome but at least we'd have something to disagree about. Instead, you are just saying "We won, we will win, because winning is whatever Trump says it is."

The difference is my predictions have conditions under which I will have to say "I was wrong." I don't TDS out, however loosely you define TDS, and say "Everything Trump does is bad and nothing he accomplishes could possibly count as a victory." I am not saying "The US lost the war." I know some other people are saying we did, by virtue of not having accomplished our goals. I am also of the opinion that we have not accomplished our goals (though it's also not clear to me what our goals are), but there is a difference between "losing" and "failing to achieve victory." Militarily, we won. How many times do I have to no-duh that? But winning anything worth calling a victory requires more than just inflicting a higher body count. We could say we're going to put an end to lawlessness in Haiti and drop bombs on them and say we won. Yeah, and?

"What are we doing here and is it worth it?" is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

  1. It would be good to have the estimated number of missiles you think they had at the start of the surprise war and how many they have left? Since you are claiming "running out of drones and missiles" and "80-90% of their military.

  2. If US has won, and Iran has come to the table in a defeated position, then why is the strait allowing <10% of traffic even now? and should be no tolls either.

I am repeating claims made by General Caine a few days ago see here:

https://www.themotte.org/post/3671/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/429651?context=8#context

Besides the missiles we have destroyed we have destroyed the vast majority of Irania factories that build missiles and the parts for missiles.

then why is the strait allowing <10% of traffic even now?

“Allowing” is the wrong verb. Iran has threatened shipping and some ships have paid the bribe to pass unmolested. Some ships have also run the strait without paying the bribe. The strait has never been completely closed but the risk is still higher than what most ships are willing to accept. Iran does not control the strait but still threatens it.

According to the terms of the ceasefire, Iran is supposed to allow strait shipping unmolested. Many ships are still not moving because of the perceived risk.

about the missiles, this is this account which estimated 20,000 missiles at 12-day war time.

https://xcancel.com/pati_marins64/status/2042087687406903788

Regarding Strait's traffic. The US has won, yet its ally is still fighting. The US has destroyed 80-90-95% of the opponent's navy, missiles, and missile production systems, and yet it is unable to:

  1. convince insurance companies or the tanker companies to feel safe enough to pass through the strait.
  2. not providing direct security to these tankers in their un-opposed navy through their passage.

While Lloyd's shows this:

Iran unveils its own Hormuz traffic separation scheme

  • Vessels transiting the chokepoint must coordinate with the IRGC Navy (not US navy).
  • Iran’s latest guidance explicitly warns of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone of the strait.
  • IRGC Navy continues to vet all traffic passing through the strait on the basis of geopolitical affiliation.

Source

In reality, US appears to have been in a hurry to shut down the ill-conceived war while exaggerating its claims to have won. While in reality, Iranians haven't lost it. The existence of a toll (of $2 million, in yuan/crypto) will mean that Iran has the upper hand. And losers never have the upper hand.

I don’t know who Patricia Marins is or why her estimate is significant but her analysis seems at odds with General Caine’s. She claims that Iran has significant missile reserves left and also notes that Iran has a huge industry dedicated to building missiles. General Caine says that America believes we have destroyed 80-90% of this industry already.

Likewise I can’t read Lloyd’s paywalled report, but your summary seems at odds with some known facts. One is that some ships have run the strait without seeking Iranian approval. Another is that the terms of the ceasefire prohibit Iran from tolling the strait. — If they feel strong enough to do so anyways and the ceasefire breaks down, well, we will see who is winning the war after America bombs Iran’s electrical grid back to the Stone Age. It’s just as likely though that this war ends without Iran tolling the strait, which would prove what I’ve been saying all along.

destroyed 80% of missile industry

Where are you reading this? Is it Caine’s remarks here? https://youtube.com/watch?v=aCCkrjlfyVk

There is a difference between “destroying 80% of the industry” and what I’m hearing from General Caine:

  • “attacked 90% of weapons factories” does not tell us what percentage of their total weapons’ industry has been degraded

  • 80% of missile defense facilities being “gone” does not tell us about their ballistic missiles, or even what percentage of total missile defense has been gone, as their significant facilities are all below ground and only the numerous less important small-scale facilities are above ground. (Theoretically, you can destroy 80% of the missile defense facilities while only damaging 10% of the total missile defense production line).

If we have ships routinely paying tolls, and America does not resume bombing, will you score that as a loss for America?

I am literally on record in this comment chain saying that Iran will not be allowed to toll the strait.

i think both of us agree to a basic yes/no point: whether Iran is/will be able to put a toll charge or not.

If Iran is able to, then it has won. If it is not able to, then it has lost.

There are new developments showing that Taiwan is in talks with China (for reunification). If it actually happens in that side of the world, US would have what we know as Pyrrhic victory.

lets see.

Yeah sure I’m already on record in this comment chain predicting that Iran will not be allowed to toll the strait

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