site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12155 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So Iran gets $300B, no commitments to remove any mines before 30 days, and no commitments to allow toll-free passage after 60 days.

I guess $300B is cheap for foreign adventures these days. Maybe we'll be able to saddle some "allies" with part of it. I'm not sure if paying reparations was part of the plan, but perhaps some plan trusters can help me out.

but perhaps some plan trusters can help me out.

Sure yeah I'd be happy to.

Sarker two months ago:

Iran hands over the uranium and pinkie promises not to make a nuke [...] Those are the kind of things that would make me say the war was a success. Now it's your turn!

The MOU:

The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.

I'm glad that they pinkie promise no bomb. That's good.

However, there's no firm commitments here about enforcing this in the future. We just get a promise of "agree to discuss the issue of enrichment."

Also, my list of desired outcomes was necessary but not sufficient. For example, if Iran credibly committed to no bomb ever but in return each American had to pay them $1000 a year in perpetuity, this would be overall bad. I assume your list was the same way.

You responded to my comment with:

[The war would be a failure if] Iran tolls the Strait of Hormuz

This is still on the table!

We are going to acquire Iran’s nuclear dust and destroy it. Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. I think this is a huge victory, because it solves one of the largest problems of American foreign policy of the last 50 years.

The money and sanctions and aid are contingent on a round credibly abandoning their nuclear aims.

In fact, Iran will begin to become a normal nation. It will not happen as quickly as it did when we conquered Japan. But that is what is being advanced here. If I ran no longer seeks nuclear weapons, and is no longer pursuing war with its neighbors, why are they our enemy? We can’t exactly become allies overnight. But we can at least figure out what regional problems remain to be discussed, and solve them at the negotiating table. In peace.

This is similar to what Trump did with North Korea, and it’s similar to what Trump did with Venezuela. Neither of those countries can be understood as allies. In fact, they both still pose enormous threats. But they are now working within normal diplomatic relations that fall short of war. And if they continue to cooperate, relations will continue to develop, and then they can become rich.

This is the Trump Doctrine. You establish overwhelming force over an adversary, strike a quick blow, then negotiate.

This is similar to what Trump did with North Korea... they are now working within normal diplomatic relations that fall short of war.

The claim that North Korea has fewer military provocations now than before Trump's 2017-2018 negotiations is false. We've previously discussed this. I'm reposting my response below for the benefit of other readers:

My semi-insider understanding [of North Korea's provocations is that they] are far more in number and severity than before. For example:

  • There continued to be major missile tests yearly until 2023, and in 2022 they flew a missile over Japan.
  • In 2022, a North Korean drone got within 2 miles of the Blue House (where the South Korean president lives). This type of drone is more like a cruise missile than a quadcopter.
  • In 2024, the North has officially abandoned a policy of reunification with the South and there's been all sorts of major border skirmishes. In 2024, the North launched artillery into the South.
  • The North has been sending troops to fight in Ukraine and sending supplies to the Russians.

If you are seeing less provocations in the news, I think that's just your media diet.

The money and sanctions and aid are contingent on a round credibly abandoning their nuclear aims.

Incorrect.

The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MoU, and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.

The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU.

Funds unfrozen and exports permitted right off the bat.

This is the Trump Doctrine. You establish overwhelming force over an adversary, strike a quick blow, then negotiate.

Hmm. What quick blow did he strike against North Korea?

upon the implementation of this MoU.

Iran will get temporary waivers until the sanctions expire. The sanctions will expire when a final deal is reached (see point 7).

What quick blow did he strike against North Korea?

We didn’t even get that far because the Norks agreed to talks after Trump threatened them.

The MOU is implemented when it's signed. Don't confuse what happens when the "deal" is reached vs MoU signing.

So Iran gets $300B, no commitments to remove any mines before 30 days, and no commitments to allow toll-free passage after 60 days.

The deal expires in 60 days anyway, and proposes only a plan for $300B, not an actual $300B. You can tell there were real estate people involved in this deal. Maybe even timeshare salespeople.

It's an agreement to develop a plan for US and it's allies to spend $300B on reconstruction/economic development. The details and how to execute the plan comes later. It's not at all obvious to me that's 300B directly into their pockets vs spending 300B in some circular fashion back into our own industries or some other paper shuffling exercise.

a plan for US and its allies to spend $300B

According to Reuters, all the money is coming from private companies, not from governments.

Ah, there you have it. "The US agrees to develop a plan for its companies and those of its allies in the gulf states to privately invest 300B in Iranian industry" is not quite the transfer of 300B into their government's pockets that some are hyperventilating about, and it's a major economic incentive for further cooperation between the two nations.

Oh my god, the administration is going to strong-arm Anthropic into financing data-centers in Iran.

With Earth's first Clay They did the Last Man knead,

And there of the Last Harvest sow'd the Seed:

And the first Morning of Creation wrote

What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read

It's not clear to me what spending $300B on our own industries looks like. Unless we're going to loan them some dentists and barbers, it's probably going to look like Iran getting a whole bunch of capital at our expense. If we build e.g. a port for Iran, maybe this has some short run benefits for America, but Iran still gets a free port. That's one thing if Iran is our new best friend, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

Maybe we'd be better off spending $300B digging holes and filling them in again in the Mojave.

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