site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22785 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Bloomberg: Goldman Says Gulf Oil Flows Two-Thirds of Prewar Level

Oil flows from the Persian Gulf have recovered to around two-thirds of pre-war levels, limiting the Iran war’s impact on global crude prices, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Total exports of crude and oil products from the region have risen to 15 million to 16 million barrels a day, helped by higher crossings through the Strait of Hormuz, Goldman analysts including Daan Struyven and Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby said in a note. That’s still 7 to 8 million barrels below pre-conflict levels, but well above a trough of 5 million to 6 million barrels a day in March, they said.

A lot of ships are still making the crossing dark with transponders turned off but the trend is clear. Iran’s (supposed) leverage over the strait is basically nullified, oil is passing through despite Iranian proclamations. Independent analysts now agree with what the US government was saying weeks ago, that millions of barrels are passing through the strait under American auspices.

US CENTCOM agrees, putting out this statement that the US has escorted a few thousand ships through the Gulf, carrying through three-quarters of a billion barrels of oil over the past few months.

What changed?

Axios: "That sucker is open": U.S. gains the upper hand in the battle for Hormuz

Zoom in: After the MOU fell apart, the military worked to reopen the strait unilaterally. The effort included several elements:

  • Together with the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. military task force started guiding ships through the southern channel of the strait while giving them air cover and intercepting Iranian drone and cruise missile attacks.

  • A two-week U.S. bombing campaign significantly undercut the IRGC's capacity to attack ships crossing the strait.

  • A mine-sweeping operation involved Navy divers, Navy SEALs, underwater and surface drones, and private contractors to detect and neutralize the mines.

  • A blockade of Iranian ports was restored.

The US has apparently de-mined the Straits of Hormuz, although, interestingly, there don’t seem to have been many mines in the first place!

More than 200 mine-like objects have been swept from the main lane of the strait. U.S. officials say only 11 of them were actual mines and just a few were properly deployed.

It seems as though Iran’s capacities to threaten ship traffic the Strait were severely degraded by US military action, but that Iran was successfully able to convince news reporters and insurance companies that it could target ships.

For instance, Brady Sullivan at CNBC says

As I reported on @CNBC over a month ago, shipowners told me many “mines” we decoys … some were actually just inflated trash bags ostensibly made to seem like Hormuz was swimming with mines.

Meanwhile, Reuters: Pipelines and ports: Iran war spurs Gulf infrastructure investment

DUBAI, Aug 28 (Reuters) - The Iran war's redrawing of the global trade map is forcing Gulf nations to retool their investment play book, ploughing capital into infrastructure, from energy pipelines to ports, to weather the fallout from the conflict.

The war has highlighted the Gulf's overreliance on the Strait of Hormuz, previously a chokepoint for 20% of global oil flows ‌but also subject for decades to Iranian threats of disruption.

Not only has Iran lost control over the Straits, but Gulf states are building new pipelines to reroute oil around the Straits so that Iran can never threaten them again.

And how does it look inside Iran?

WSJ: Labor Protests and Panic Buying Signal Growing Pressure in Iran

Iranians rushed to buy fuel and food this week, signaling mounting economic pressure as the Trump administration’s threat to tighten sanctions sparked fears of deeper shortages and pain.

Small demonstrations by labor unions—which had all but disappeared during the war—are popping up across the country. Oil workers, pensioners and teachers have gathered to complain about the declining currency and rising cost of living.

————

Some might remember Trump’s infamous comments on this subject some months ago:

Q. And what's your backup plan?

The President. Excuse?

Q. What's your backup plan if the—there's no deal to open the Strait?

The President. The—you don't need a backup plan. We have—the military is defeated. Their military is gone. They have—you know, we've degraded just about everything. They have very few missiles. They have very little manufacturing capability. We've hit them hard. Our military is amazing——

The Shakes take: Iran will never toll the straits, Iran will never have nuclear weapons, Trump was right about everything, a lot of people who believed Iranian claims are looking very, increasingly, increasingly!, foolish.

All of the following can be true:

  • Iran has no ability to force the U.S. out of the strait.
  • Iran has minimal ability to threaten traffic through the strait.
  • Iran is gradually losing control over oil flows.
  • Iran has significant domestic unrest.
  • The U.S. has killed, and will continue to kill, any Iranian leadership which gets too aggressive.
  • The U.S. can keep this up for longer than a third-rate military.

In fact, all of the following were true before we attacked. We have spent six months and who knows how many weapons—for what? Delaying a nuclear program? Stimulating defense spending? Getting Republicans out of office?

If Trump expected a special operation, in and out in a couple weeks, he was wrong. If he thought Iran would concede after this level of ass-blasting, he was wrong. If he thought another Middle Eastern slog would boost his approval, he was wrong. If he thought oil prices would go back down, he was wrong. Iran had and has zero chance of winning this war on any conceivable metric. That doesn’t mean it was a good deal.

We have spent six months and who knows how many weapons—for what? Delaying a nuclear program?

I'm hoping that this does a little more than simply delay the program, but stops it entirely. A six month bombing campaign seems a completely reasonable cost for that! I feel like people are far too blase with the idea of letting 3rd world dictators have nuclear weapons, especially when they also have long range missiles

I'm hoping that this does a little more than simply delay the program, but stops it entirely.

What is the mechanism for ensuring this in 2,5,10 years?

A six month bombing campaign seems a completely reasonable cost for that!

Similarly, what is the mechanism for turning bombing lots of random stuff in Iran to stopping the nuclear program?

Nukes are a 1940s tech. Iran has already stood up most/all of the supply chain once. And the first time around they also didn't have access to 2026 technology.

Regular inspections (as well as satellite reconnaissance) are the mechanism. Nukes might be old tech, but they still require a massive industrial apparatus of centrifuges to make the enriched uranium. It's pretty easy to spot, and then blow it up. As well as blowing up all the engineers and the leaders who authorized it, for good measure. America has tremendous power to do things now, we don't have to suffer the learned helplessness of the Obama era anymore.

Inspections require a deal, and a deal requires both sides to recognize that they stand to gain from cutting a deal now rather than later.

At the moment, Trump has to worry about the mid-terms. The Ayatollah has no such worries. The costs the US is paying to keep the oil flowing through Hormuz is certainly orders of magnitude larger than the costs Iran needs to pay to credibly threaten that flow in the absence of US protection.

Iran likely thinks (correctly IMO) that they stand to get a better deal by whatever Trump's successor will be (because neither Vance nor Newsom would be keen to inherit Trump's forever war) than whatever Trump will offer. Or they view him as lacking the trustworthiness to make deals (also correctly, IMO).

And Trump would need a deal which is a clear victory, not a return to the Obama era deal. This might be significantly less survivable for the Iranian regime than another few years of getting bombed.

At the moment, Trump has to worry about the mid-terms. The Ayatollah has no such worries.

No, he just has to worry about massive inflation, fuel shortages, and food scarcity pushing Irans already disgruntled populace into another round of mass protests. From any objective metric Iran is far more time limited than Trump is. The worst that can happen to Trump is losing Congress, the Ayatollah is facing a rising risk of having his head put on a pike with every day the blockade is in place.

No, he just has to worry about massive inflation, fuel shortages, and food scarcity pushing Irans already disgruntled populace into another round of mass protests.

Eh, he can just kill a bunch of them again. Works every time.

America has tremendous power to do things now,

How you define "do things" is quite load bearing.

I absolutely agree, America can flatten Iran any day of any week, likely forever. But it definitely cannot semi-frequently mow the grass and contain China to the first island chain.

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