site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11886 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.

The full text of the memorandum has been released and confirmed by the White House:

If this is signed as written on Friday, I predict major ructions in the GOP, particularly the Senate, which were already coming to a head before this.

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed, in good faith, on ……… 2026, at…………………, on the following:

  1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final Deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.

  2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

  3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final Deal, in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.

  4. Immediately upon the signing of this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal.

  5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

  6. The United States of America undertakes, with regional partners, to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 Billion, for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of final Deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.

  7. The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final Deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

  8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon, in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph 7, with the minimum methodology to be down blending on-site, under the supervision of the IAEA. The two Parties also agree to discuss the issue of enrichment, and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final Deal. The final Deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

  9. Pending the final Deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo; the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region.

  10. 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.

  11. 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. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully useable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.

  12. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MoU and the future compliance of the final Deal.

  13. After signing this MoU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MoU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final Deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

  14. The final Deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

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.

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