site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9098 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 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.

Pardon me since we did this just so soon but, yes, I'm ready to go again:

Iran has lost significant control of the Strait of Hormuz

At the moment, however, the evidence is clear: The United States, patrolling the strait with its navy, is gaining ground – and Iran is losing much of its control of the critical waterway.

More than 80% of liquids transits through the Strait of Hormuz over the past two weeks have taken the Omani route – a UN-authorized shipping channel that Iran vehemently opposes – or have been “dark” transits that likely took the Omani route, according to Kpler, which tracks ships using transponders and satellite data.

Despite Iranian claims to control the Strait and shut down shipping, ships are increasingly making the passage. Ships are turning off transponders (eluding both the Iranians and OSInt twitter prose) and trusting in American protection. And the smaller number of ships making the passage often belies that these ships are carrying more than previous ships did before them:

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have chartered Very Large Crude oil Carriers (VLCCs) – the biggest oil tankers – to transit out of the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz, then transfering the oil to customers’ tankers outside the danger zone in the Gulf of Oman, according to Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates.

It appears that America's strategy is working: Iran is increasingly hemmed in, unable to break the American blockade, threatened by inflation and sanctions, dwindling military supplies rendering its threats on the Straits weaker and weaker.

One of the theories invoked last time we had this discussion was that countries like UAE are in fact paying bribes to Iran, meaning that Iran in fact is collecting tolls on the Strait and it's really Trump that's impotent. How's that going?

UAE Cuts Economic Ties With Iran After Missiles Target Territory

The Persian Gulf nation, traditionally one of Iran's main commercial partners, said it would halt trade and financial transactions with Iran until further notice in light of "escalations that undermine regional and international peace and security," the UAE said in a statement.

A missile threat alert sounded in Dubai on Tuesday evening, urging residents to seek shelter. The Defense Ministry later said two projectiles that targeted maritime traffic fell into the sea, with only one reaching UAE waters. Iran denied responsibility for the attack, which would be the first on UAE territory since May.

The UAE and Iran have had close trading ties for generations due to their geographic proximity and deep historic links. The UAE has been Iran's top trade partner in recent years, with Tehran relying on the relationship for access to foreign goods and hard currency.

Iran's strategy of bombing neutral nations, or declaring that neutral nations are actually working in concert with the Americans and therefore are justifiable targets, appears not to be making it any allies. It appears, in fact, to be more isolated than ever as more countries come around to the American line of thinking.

According to Al Jazeera, however, Iran denies bombing UAE.

So, how do we reconcile these claims? I would humbly suggest that Iran is less and less in control of itself, with political battles between hardliners and those who want to surrender, inflation, a puppet Supreme Leader who has not been seen in public since his supposed inauguration, and a military increasingly acting without any central command or foresight. I would suggest, in fact, that Iran has lost, which remains the case even if the Iranian regime does not fall and continues to make absurd pronouncements that they are actually winning.

Speaking of that...

Trump Responds as Iran Says U.S. Must Meet These Six Demands If Strait of Hormuz Is to Reopen

The conditions were as follows:

Never threaten Iran with any language or insult the sanctities of this nation.

End the war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq forever.

Lift the naval blockade and withdraw its military forces (naval and air) from around Iran.

Pay the damages of the two wars of aggression and imposition on Iran without any reduction or reduction.

Lift the cruel and illegal sanctions against the Iranian nation.

Unconditionally release the frozen and stolen assets of the Iranian people.

It looks like Iran is no closer to surrendering than they were a few months ago. And their public-facing demands are clearly non-starters -- unless anyone wants to argue that America is about to eminently surrender and accept these terms -- although it's not clear why they would. Because, at this point, here is where we are at:

  • America bombed Iran, bombed its nuclear sites, bombed its military factories, and killed its leaders
  • America can operate in Iran at will, to the point that a pilot downed over Iranian airspace was rescued in a covert mission that involved building a runway inside Iran to complete the rescue
  • Israel is continuing to subdue Iran's allies in its ongoing wars
  • America is rolling up Iran's militias in Iraq
  • Other Gulf countries are working in concert with America to freeze Iran out, increasingly and increasingly
  • Iran does not meaningfully control the Strait of Hormuz, cannot stop ships from passing through, has attempted to strike many and sunk none
  • Iran cannot meaningfully retaliate against American soldiers or bases or ships, cannot sink American ships, cannot destroy American factories
  • The price of oil has not skyrocketed or crippled the global economy. America, especially, suffers mildly oil prices as a minor inconvenience

Iran is not going to toll the straits. Iran cannot toll the straits. This is as powerful as they're going to get, it's all downhill from here, and it's not very powerful for them. Iran is never going to get nuclear weapons. Iran is never going to break the American blockade. Iran is never going to push America out of the Gulf. They have two options: surrender, or not. And it doesn't matter if they choose not to surrender, because America can continue doing this indefinitely. If anything, the longer this goes on, the cheaper it becomes as Iran's power wanes, more ships transit the gulf, more oil bypasses the Gulf entirely, and the easier it becomes for America to patrol.

What's changed recently? Well, not much. This is just the continuation of what's been going on all along. When America launched this war it significantly crippled Iran's ability to respond, and Iran's threat to control the Strait of Hormuz, which sounded so impressive at first, has turned more and more hollow. I don't expect this argument to be any more popular than the last time I made it, but I want to note again that the predictions that Iran was winning or would win have not been born out, have never been born out. Iran has lost, whether they surrender or not, whether people believe their blustery threats or not.

This is only going to become more and more obvious.

CNN journalist David Goldman appears to be lying about what Kpler says. Kpler as of the 16th says —

Routing also remained constrained, with vessels using the Iranian Unilateral Scheme or undetermined routes, while no crossings were recorded through the Hormuz TSS or Omani routes […]

—

ships are increasingly making the passage

Kpler says ships are decreasingly making the passage: “traffic through the Strait of Hormuz weakened last week, with confirmed crossings falling 19.5% to 95 and reaching just three on 16 August”. IIRC in a previous exchange you were skeptical of unnamed sources speaking to Reuters, but perhaps even named sourced at CNN deserve more skepticism than that.

Iran is not going to toll the straits. Iran cannot toll the straits.

This is really the crux of the matter. If they have the munitions available, they will be able to destroy some or most of the ships passing through the strait outside of their corridor. This is very taxing to us, and unlike the Iranians, we are not an ethnoreligious theocracy that worships inglorious death, so we are less willing to suffer than Iran.

with confirmed crossings falling 19.5% to 95

A few months ago if I had said there were hundreds of ships crossing the Straits of Hormuz everyone would have called me ridiculous and dismissed it out of hand. Now we’re just debating how many ships are getting through.

If they have the munitions available, they will be able to destroy some or most of the ships passing through the strait outside of their corridor.

Well, demonstrably, Iran has been shooting at ships and yet… what have they sunk? What have they actually achieved? Seems like they aren’t destroying ships passing outside their corridor because ships are passing outside their corridor all the time.

Is Iran just holding back? Maybe we haven’t seen their final form? Seems like if they actually had the power to win they would start winning.

The ships getting through, ~11 per day on average the past 7 days, do not appear to be using the Omani corridor or the previous official corridor. The confirmed crossings are through the Iranian corridor. Scrolling down all the way to Aug. 7th, they’re sticking to the Iranian corridor. Sadly Kpler is not forthcoming about what non-Omani and non-TSS “undetermined routes” means. I don’t know why, because they have sophisticated satellites for that kind of thing.

These guys seem to know what they’re talking about: https://maritime-executive.com/article/iran-claims-to-turn-back-chinese-tanker-and-continues-to-detain-uae-vessel . The Maritime Executive… I love it.

The Maritime Executive today has the largest AUDITED circulation in the maritime industry. Its unique perspective and unfettered approach give readers something no other publication can provide – Intellectual Capital of the highest order. Published six times a year, each issue contains a comprehensive Case Study and Executive Interview along with in-depth analyses of key industry issues and trends.

This is enough for me to trust whatever they’re going to say; I love how they capitalized audited. Look at their 404 page, glorious. These guys are unlikely to lie because unlike a random journalist or Trump guy, they work in the industry and would feel compunction if their influence leads some poor sailor to die.

The information is consistent with several events observed by Windward, the AI maritime intelligence firm, and reports by Bloomberg. Windward spotted two China-linked tankers aborting outbound transits of the Strait of Hormuz. One, it says, was a Hong Kong-flagged VLCC that looped back rather than cross the Strait and that followed another Chinese tanker that turned back within a 24-hour period. It also reports that on August 19, an inbound Hong Kong-flagged crude oil tanker turned around mid-transit. It says the vessel, which was entering in ballast, was on the southern route, reporting its destination as the UAE.

So Iran made two southern-approaching ships turn back

Iranian reports are emphasizing the “violation of Iran’s maritime law.” It says the product tanker linked to the UAE, which was stopped on Monday, Amara (47,931 dwt), flagged in Liberia, is now being directed to Bandar Abbas. The ship had been inbound with ballast bound for Jebel Ali. Currently, it appears to be anchored near Larak Island in Iran. WANA says this is the first time that the Islamic Republic has explicitly declared the refusal to pay service fees as the reason for stopping a ship. Windward notes it is the first confirmed Iranian seizure since June 22, and because the vessel was empty, it says the interdiction seems consistent with a transit compliance or fee dispute.

So they’ve Hemingway’d at least one ship

variances in transits are consistent with the reports from Kpler, which said on August 18 that confirmed Strait of Hormuz transits were down 17 percent from the prior day. It reports six vessels exited and four entered, but five were on the Iranian route and none through the Hormuz TSS

Reaffirming Kpler. Also, I just looked and Kpler is uploading shorts on YouTube. That’s very funny to me.

The Maritime Executive… I love it.

Maritime Executive is my go-to lunchtime reading. Partly because I used to be in an adjacent industry, and partly because it's so damn reassuring and unpoliticized. Reassuring because no matter what's going on in the world, the large shipbuilding and shipping and tourism companies really don't give a damn except for a bit of geographically local excitement.

So Iran made two southern-approaching ships turn back

It's possibly worth noting that both of these were Chinese vessels... There's some geopolitics going on there beyond just coincidence, or I'll have a hat sandwich.

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