site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9126 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 27, 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.

I am against American funding or intervention in the middle east. But I think that position is rarest among people willing to express an opinion about the conflict, and it's also probably the most common opinion among people who are quiet about it. I've had very little success in converting interventionists of either stripe into non-interventionists.

You get to have that political opinion today because America got very good at shale oil and became an energy powerhouse.

Non-intervention in the ME was not a possible political position pre-2010 unless you were also willing to accept a lower quality of life in the US. Back then we needed to keep the oil flowing.

Today the biggest benefit to America playing geopolitical games in the ME is Jared Kushner getting a PE fund.

Non-intervention in the ME was not a possible political position pre-2010 unless you were also willing to accept a lower quality of life in the US. Back then we needed to keep the oil flowing.

US support for Israel is not and never was driven by oil. The oil is controlled by the Gulf Arabs, and the Gulf Arabs hated Israel as much as everyone else in the region until the 2010s when the Middle East became a giant proxy war between Iranian and Saudi-backed jihadi groups. The first oil shock in 1973 was engineered deliberately by the Gulf Arabs to punish America (and other western countries) for supporting Israel. The "realist" policy in the post Cold War era (as practiced, for example, by both Bushes) was to unofficially tie American pressure on Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians to commitments from the Fremen to keep the Spice flowing.

True I left out the support of Israel causing a lot of pre-2010 issues. And that’s a big reason we had negative Middle East issues back then.

The broad security blanket we provided the ME wasn’t that expensive and necessary. Supporting Israel was expensive. Mea culpa I wasn’t thinking about the costs of Israel back then and it’s a glaring omission.

Any market that sells to the world is open to world price fluctuations. Holding the position today is the same as it was back then. That also fails a basic cost benefit analysis. We spent in the trillions to decrease the price of a thing that was in the 100 billions. If we had just eaten the higher oil costs and not started wars over there we would have been better off. And its likely we would have arrived at the "American energy powerhouse" situation earlier.

So we have had lower quality of life to do these interventions. But even if that wasn't true I'd still bite the bullet of non-intervention, for many reasons.

  1. Energy prices are inelastic in the short term.

  2. It’s a core necessity for production of anything. If you don’t have chocolate well you don’t eat chocolate. If you don’t have energy a lot of high value add businesses needs to stop because energy goes into everything.

2 & 3. Imply that gdp impact is > import costs

  1. Iraq and Afghanistan were not oil wars but about terrorism. Long term backing of Saudi Arabia was oil. Iran war now is probably oil but to deny it to China. Afghanistan doesn’t even have oil. Iraq 90% of it was probably wanting to fuck some brown people because of 9/11. So the trillions in the 2000’s was mostly not about oil.

  2. I don’t know the true amount the US spent on securing oil supplies over decades but it’s not the trillions of the Iraq War. It also had spillover benefits for allies securing oil.

  3. I don’t know when the US would have become an energy powerhouses if oil surged sooner. Higher prices would have started the process earlier. The 1970’s oil prices didn’t trigger shale. And Europe has high energy prices and no plans to improve on that situation.

I'm confused. First I say I don't want middle east spending and intervention. Next you say I couldn't have had that opinion pre-2010s because the intervention was required for lower oil prices. Next I say we spent trillions on that intervention so it seems not worth it. Now you say that intervention wasn't related to oil prices (which I agree with) but makes your original objection seem strange and pointless.

Some interventions were necessary. Arming the Saudis 100%. Doing some form of balance of power politics etc.

It’s just the Iraq War and Afghanistan were not about oil directly. Iraq War 1 could be considered an oil war. The post 9/11 stuff was terrorism related and the only oil connection was some OBL hating us for propping up the Saudi regime.

I don't think any interventions were necessary anywhere. It's in everyone's interest to keep the oil flowing. Who exactly wants the money train to stop, and with what money are they gonna raise an army to stop it?

And if your answer to my original point is "oh we could have paid 95% less on intervention" then I would be happy with that compromise.

This conversation also started about Israel, how much oil does Israel have? I thought the answer was effectively none.

I think Monzer is correct a lot of the expense was Israel. Keeping the oil trade routes open was fairly cheap and necessary. Iraq 1 is the only action I would label in that regard and was on the cheap side for a 50 year mega gas station.

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