site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9hr ago (text post)   1422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Deal reached to end Iran war

Details of the deal are not publicly available right now. However, Trump has authorised an end to the US naval blockade, and Iran has agreed to reopen the Strait.

Not surprisingly though, Israel continues to bomb Lebanon and refuses to cede lands seized in southern Lebanon.

But MORE surprisingly, Trump actually reprimanded Bibi.

Trump has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop hitting Lebanon hard while a deal is near, but the prime minister has defied him. Trump told Fox News he had asked Netanyahu what he was doing, using an expletive. "What the f*** are you doing?" Trump says he told Netanyahu. Trump described the attack on northern Israel as "very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process".

Iran wants a ceasefire deal to include the fighting in Lebanon. It’s unclear whether that would mean Israeli forces' withdrawal and when. Most of Hezbollah's attacks in recent weeks have targeted Israeli troops inside Lebanon.

"A strong response is coming," said Ebrahim Azizi, who heads the Iranian parliament’s national security commission and is close to top leaders.

And Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a lead negotiator for Tehran, warned the US on X after Israel's strikes that "if you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible".

The deal does not solve the thorniest issues between the US and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program or its billions of dollars in frozen funds, but offers a 60-day framework for technical discussions on those issues, according to Pakistani and regional officials familiar with the ongoing negotiations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Under the deal being discussed, US and Israel appear to have fallen short of their original goals of destroying Iran’s missile and nuclear programs and ending its support for armed proxies in the region. It is not clear how the deal will address these issues, or if they will be part of the final agreement.

Critics in Trump’s Republican Party, struggling with an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections, have criticised the emerging deal. Some said it did not improve on the terms of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump withdrew the US from during his first term and which he still describes as "bad".

So it seems we were lucky to return to the pre-war status quo, even Trump had to tepidly admit that he bit off more than he can chew and Iran's regional dominance is not going anywhere.

Trump and Iran can sign whatever they want. There's no way Israel stops operations against Hezbollah.

If the US commits to neutrality between Iran and Israel in the event Israel refuses to stop its war on Lebanon its hand would be forced. Israel cannot fight Iran without US military support.

Israel is not gonna let Hezbollah depopulate its northern territories at will. That's just not a thing that's going to happen.

depopulate

That is a pretty strong claim. Per WP, there were 31 IDF soldiers, one demolition worker and two Israeli civilians killed in the war. On the Lebanon/Hezbollah side, there have been over 3700 killed. From the IDF Gaza conduct, I would assume that at least half of them are civilians.

Now I get that this disparity is because Israeli missile defense is rather good, not because Hezbollah is peaceful.

But "depopulate at will" carries a sense of urgency, "we need to act now before most of our population is dead". Palestinians have send rockets towards Israel to little effect and Israel has responded by bombing them with much greater efficiency for longer than I have been alive. It is just the locals on both sides expressing their religions or something. The rational response for Israel would be to shrug and just accept it as a minor inconvenience for the failure to make peace with the Palestinians and settling in the West Bank.

The "depopulation" likely refers to evacuations, not deaths.

What will they do if Trump cuts off their munitions? The IDF doesn't even make its own bombs. They have about as much independence as Mussolini circa 1944

The Israeli conflicts are a trap for American presidents because they don't want either side to win or to lose. Israel losing a war would destroy Trump's presidency irrevocably.

Would it? If he could assure cheaper oil and an economic boom many voters would be pleased, even if Israel lobbied against him. It's not as if Trump is running for a third term.

I've been critical of Israeli policy before, but that kind of disagreement hides a fundamental similarity: Israel is us. They live like us, they act like us, they mostly look like us.

The image of Jewish people being purged from their homes as a result of US foreign policy mismanagement would be incredibly destructive.

Iran is not going to let Israel invade Lebanon. And Iran can actually follow through on enforcing that. The US can't stop them, and Trump demanding Israel stop its war on Lebanon demonstrates that. That's not Israel's call to make, its hands will be tied if the US is unwilling to accept economic catastrophe on behalf of Israel's war objectives, and it appears it is not willing to do so. That's why there's so much panic from the Israeli camp, they've hit their limit of influence.

Iran can actually follow through on enforcing that

How? Just by launching missiles against Israel? We've just seen from the US/Iran (and US/Yemen) conflicts that bombing/missile campaigns aren't enough to defeat a state/change their policy.

  1. Lebanon and Iran are negotiating together. If Israel is occupying Lebanon the straight is closed. There can't be a 2.5 year Gaza debacle with Iran blockading 13% of global oil.

  2. Israel is currently more mobilized than Ukraine or Russia. It is a country which non extremist jewish population isn't much larger than Denmark's population. They have to keep several hundred thousand soldiers mobilized continuously. Israel isn't going to be a functioning state if this is their long term trajectory. Israel's international popularity is tanking. Israel is turning into French Algeria, South Vietnam, Rhodesia and South Africa. A small state which minimal natural resources that is rapidly turning the world against it is in deep trouble. The more Israel is ethnically cleansing Christian areas, bombing Beirut and causing constant headlines about war in the middle east the less popular they become.

Lebanon and Iran are negotiating together

Is this Lebanon as in Lebanon, or Lebanon as in Hezbollah? There are at least three parties at play in the region, and the "Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" meme feels salient for any two-party negotiations in the area.

There can't be a 2.5 year Gaza debacle with Iran blockading 13% of global oil.

Iran has been unable to maintain an effective closure of the strait; the US and the Gulf countries have been getting oil through, which along with the diversion to the Red Sea and Gulf of Oman, has kept oil prices from becoming intolerable. In a 2.5 year stalemate, there would be more pipelines outside areas Iran could effectively menace.

As for Israel, unlike South Africa and Rhodesia, it is not just going to give up.

It's not sufficient for an unconditional or nearly-unconditional surrender, but it can be sufficient as a deterrent. Israel was deterred in its 14 day war, which is why it accepted a ceasefire without conditions and then brought the US directly into the war, which has resulted in another ceasefire with conditions and concessions from both sides.

Neither Israel itself nor Israel/US could achieve its war aims against Iran and that's entirely thanks to its missile capabilities. Israel could not fight Hezbollah with Iran firing rockets at them given US neutrality. They would be fighting a drone-intensive asymmetric war while facing, by intelligence accounts, a high level of remaining Iranian missile capabilities combined with dwindling missile defense stockpiles. It's checkmate unless Israel can keep the US in the war directly, and despite my own confidence in Zionist influence in American society they are unambiguously overextended and I don't think they can.

Really what it comes down to is if the US is willing to be neutral while Israel attempts to keep the war going via Lebanon.

There seems to be some kind of psychological law that everyone believes that their out-group is uniquely cowardly and can easily be cowed and persuaded by terroristic aerial bombing campaigns, despite the knowledge that one's in-group would absolutely never be persuaded by such means.

Agreed. Obligatory acoup.

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