site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11754 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.

This person, who clearly hates America and all it stands for, is apparently peddling IRGC propaganda with a straight face; I admit I was fooled by it at first since it sounds plausible. His kind are constantly dooming.

Reading that, I imagine that's what it must have been like to listen to Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw on the radio during WWII. Except I always had the impression those two were at least a bit entertaining, and willing to reach out emotionally to listeners with something other than blatant contempt and hatred.

Also, as someone who overuses italics themselves, that writing style is grating. I may overuse them, but he misuses them.

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