site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21021 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've said before that the MOU is a sign of the US accepting the failure of Epic Fury and military defeat and cutting losses (contra my initial expectations; tbh that was impressive, if anything – Russia also miscalculated, but can't even cut losses). But well, nothing (except self-respect and reason, perhaps) could prevent the US from retroactively revoking this acceptance and just relaunching the war.

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered. Now that that hasn’t happened, they say that the US lost so badly it must have changed its mind about surrendering.

The rest of your post in fact makes a case I was arguing months ago: that the global supply chain was more resilient than critics supposed and that Iran’s leverage over the strait was not that great.

The much more plausible explanation, which I have not had to alter over the past few months, which looks better and better with age, is this: America decisively crippled Iran’s nuclear capabilities and Military Industrial Complex; Iran has been badly weakened, maybe fatally; Iran does not control the straits and cannot chase America out of the straits; America is in a dominant position. Iran will never toll the straits, they will never acquire nuclear weapons, their military strikes will become increasingly ineffective, their country will suffer from inflation and sanctions, they have no trump card to play, and the only question left is how badly they will surrender.

The US accepted an MOU that people swore amounted to total victory for Iran. Then [B]Iran[/B] through its actions demonstrated it didn't think the MOU was total victory. Iran still thinks it can get unconditional surrender -- the US goes away, Iran tolls the straits, Iranian proxies attack Israel and Israel just takes it, and Iran gets back to the job of building a nuke for Tel Aviv. The US does not appear to be interested in this deal, but neither is it interested in invading Iran. So we've got this dynamic stalemate. Iran can't keep the straits closed, but the US can't keep them 100% safe either. Every time Iran attacks shipped, they get bombed more.

Iran can still win, though. They can simply outlast Trump, and then President AOC or Al-Sayed gives them everything they want. This does assume Trump doesn't decide to do a decisive attack, or if he tries Congress and the courts stop them.

I think the US is going to "lose" this war, because ultimately Trump is better off losing than winning. The consequences of a US victory are either a US-led occupation of Iran, or a Houthis-on-the-Hormuz failed state under circumstances where it is obviously Trump's fault. Both of these are worse, in US domestic political terms, than declaring victory and going home (even if the declaration of victory is non-credible outside the MAGA filter bubble). If Trump's economic team were competent enough to impose export controls on US crude oil in a way which limited the impact on pump prices, then making Iran Iran's neighbours' problem is the obviously correct America First policy.

Iran, even with nukes and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, is a threat to America's no-longer-needed proxies in the Middle East, not to America.

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered.

My position was that America lost badly enough in the first round that they wouldn’t be able to afford to leave it at that. I had been expecting this resumption for some time.

Your prediction was the set of every possible outcome? Congratulations on your predictive powers

A few months ago war critics told me that America lost so badly it would accept whatever terms that the Iranians offered. Now that that hasn’t happened, they say that the US lost so badly it must have changed its mind about surrendering.

That's exactly what had happened, though. The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms. You don't get to change history by having a temper tantrum. All you attest to is that the US is even less trustworthy than was commonly believed, and Trump is basically not the kind of creature capable of representing a state with a consistent policy and commitments, but just a dude doing whatever. As I've said 2 weeks ago:

Operation Epic Fury had been declared Over in early May already, by the Secretary of State, who doesn't have remotely Trump's reputation. The US and Iran have signed - not announced, not "leaked" – an MOU which is clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective of the US, and a bunch of obvious Ws for Iran. Could Trump ignore it all, restart the war, and actually beat Iran this time? Quite possibly. Such things happen in history. But that'd be another, separate war. The terms accepted now suggest the US was pretty desperate for an off-ramp.

This seems as true as it was then.

that the global supply chain was more resilient than critics supposed

The point I'm making is that the global supply chain's resilience, which your war is dependent upon, is subsidized by the PRC, and the US had no reason to assume this goodwill at the start.

The much more plausible explanation, which I have not had to alter over the past few months

Ok? What was even the point of the MOU then, in your opinion?

That's exactly what had happened, though. The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms.

Did they sign unflattering terms or did they agree to things they would never have to act on because Iran, Israel, or the US would promptly renege?

America killed Iran’s leadership and bombed their factories, which means Iran won. Because they control the straits of Hormuz, which allows them to cripple global trade, although that hasn’t happened because of the Chinese, who support Iran. It’s all very simple. The Americans lost so humiliatingly that they signed an embarrassing surrender deal, which proves they lost, even though they aren’t following it right now, which also proves they lost. It’s all very simple. The important point is that Donald Trump is evil, but he lost because he’s stupid, but he’s also too evil to care, but he’s also too stupid to know he lost, but he also refuses to accept that he lost because he’s so evil. It’s a very simple explanation. If the US starts to appear as though it’s winning, it’s actually a separate second war that bears no relation to the first war. Who can really say. Iran might not have a navy or Air Force or nukes, their leaders were all killed and now the IRGC is divided about how to proceed, they can’t control the straits and they are under tremendous economic strain, but when you think about it they refuse to surrender and isn’t that the same as winning?

The US accepted and signed very unflattering terms.

At the time I pointed out that America wouldn’t pay Iran any money unless they cooperated, and now what’s happened? Does it feel like Iran is in control? Does it look like Iran is in control?

America killed Iran’s leadership and bombed their factories, which means Iran won

We've been over this. Yes, killing people and bombing shit does not constitute a strategic victory, although your culture might be too unrefined to grasp such a sophisticated post-Bronze Age notion. Read the community note here, for example.

You really try to sneer, but it's clear you're mad.

The important point is that Donald Trump is evil, but he lost because he’s stupid, but he’s also too evil to care, but he’s also too stupid to know he lost, but he also refuses to accept that he lost because he’s so evil. It’s a very simple explanation

That's not the only point, but it's a simple and true explanation, consistent with all of Donald Trump's actions over his entire career, from big to small, from wars to his pathetic whiny entitlement; and the reason you're mad is that you don't want to recognize what loyalty to this creature says about yourself. Trump provides you with vicarious fulfillment of fantasies about bullying and revenge, so you're invested in overlooking his missteps.

It's interesting, Shakes, that you regress to this reduced vocabulary and simplistic sentences, essentially triumphalist grunts, when you get excited and angry. Like here:

America is building an economy in space. We have rockets that catch themselves in the air and wifi where there are no cell towers. We revolutionized energy, we export energy now. We are leading the AI superrace. We still have the strongest navy and the strongest planes in the world. Europe is falling behind. China can't catch up. We are building a next-generation tech stack the entire world will rely on and nobody else is close to catching up. It's an American century.

It's… Trumpian. Strongest planes. Winning bigly. Killed their leaders. Have you noticed? Or is it affected?

“You mad, bro? You mad bro?” Too bad I was kind of looking forward to arguing again. Until next time!

For the record, I was enjoying reading both your and @DaseindustriesLtd's takes!

I think of it as a fun ongoing debate tbh

You flinch away from self-reflection, which is in character, of course.

Guy who can’t face the inconsistency of his predictions telling me to self-reflect

They're perfectly consistent though. It's the US policy that's inconsistent, because the US has no culture of merit or human virtue and can elevate a random scammer to presidency.

This is a cartoonish, almost ghoulish understanding of the United States of America. It would be absurd to say about almost any country, let alone the country that has made possible the most flourishing in human history. I get criticized for grandiosity but this is far more extreme than anything I’ve ever said.

More comments

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