site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9287 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 28, 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.

Bloomberg: JPMorgan and Goldman See Mideast Oil Flows Near Pre-War Levels

Crude oil flows from the Middle East are returning toward pre-war levels despite continued risks to shipping, according to separate estimates from JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

“The Middle East’s oil export arteries are flowing again,” JPMorgan analysts including Natasha Kaneva said in a Sept. 29 note. That’s “a remarkable recovery for a region still at war,” although it’s been uneven, they said.

Shipments of crude oil have rebounded to 17.5 million barrels a day, or 98% of pre-war levels, while flows of products such as diesel and gasoline were at 3 million barrels a day, or 58%, according to JPMorgan.

Oil is passing coming through the Middle East again, at essentially pre-war levels. Some of this is from oil bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, and some of this is from oil transiting the Strait under American protection.

Flows through Hormuz have almost “returned to late-June highs of nearly 13 million barrels a day, led primarily by Saudi Arabia,” JPMorgan said. “But higher crossings should not be mistaken for improved safety — rather, they reflect the industry’s increasing ability to operate under sustained risk.”

Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, said oil exports from the Persian Gulf — including so-called dark flows moved clandestinely — had recovered to 23.3 million barrels a day over the last week, a level in line with the 2025 average.

Diesel and gasoline are still stymied, but, mostly, because Iranian exports are being blockaded by the US.

“We note a divergence between the fall of Iranian exports and the rise of exports of other Persian Gulf producers,” Goldman said. “Saudi estimated exports more than doubled in September and rose above their 2025 average.”

But other Gulf States are increasing their own exports to compensate for the missing Iranian piece.

It appears that the Iranians are not capable of stopping exports from flowing through the Straits, and so oil exports are returning to normal.

Meanwhile, Iran seemingly wants to end the war, although none dare call it "surrender":

New York Times: Iran Proposes 7-Day Plan to End War

Iran’s foreign minister said Thursday that Tehran had proposed to Washington a seven-day plan to cease hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and then begin comprehensive talks on his country’s nuclear program.

Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister, told reporters at a press briefing at the United Nations General Assembly that the proposal closely mirrored the commitments laid out in a so-called memorandum of understanding that was struck between the United States and Iran in June but quickly unraveled.

He said Iran was ready to begin putting the plan into effect as soon as Washington agreed to it.

“We have introduced a plan to the United States through the intermediators that if certain conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz would be open on the end of the seventh day and talks would restart,” Mr. Araghchi said.

He said “it would be better,” if a deal was reached before the U.S. midterm elections.

Iran wants, essentially, to return to something close to June's MOU, except on a faster timetable. Iran agrees to "reopen" the Straits in exchange for getting its confiscated $12 Billion, an end of the sanctions and blockade, and then to open discussions as to the future of its nuclear program.

Contrary to expectations that Iran is biding its time in hopes that Democrats will retake Congress, Iran says that it would prefer to reach a deal before the midterms.

Trump, however, is not interested:

AP: Iran indicates it’s received an official US response to its latest offer on ending the war

Trump swiftly rejected the proposal, saying Iran wanted to make a deal because it was “losing so badly” but that its offer “would not be acceptable.” Despite Trump’s public rebuffing, mediators continued working with Iran and the U.S. to try to broker a deal to end the fighting and open the strait, according to officials who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department unveiled new sanctions on Tuesday targeting people and companies around the globe that it accuses of being financial facilitators or enablers of Iran’s military supply chain.

Iran prefers to call it a "win-win":

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi presented the U.S. response to President Masoud Pezeshkian at a Cabinet meeting, government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani told the state-run IRNA news agency.

“We will make every effort to bring the agreement to fruition and will firmly stand up for the rights of the Iranian people,” Pezeshkian said. “The agreement must now be based on a win-win strategy.”

So, here's the current state of the war:

  • Shipping is moving through Hormuz and is increasing week-to-week. Total traffic out of the Gulf is approaching pre-war levels.

  • Iran has no ability to seriously threaten shipping in the Straits.

  • Iran is seemingly unable or unwilling to continue striking other American targets and assets in the Gulf

  • Iran remains blockaded and unable to export its own products, contributing to severe stress on the Iranian economy.

  • Iran is more interested in negotiating peace than Trump is.

Forgive me for repeating old arguments but I need to be clear about this: Trump was right about Iran and America is winning.

I don't think that many astute geopolitical commenters who weren't blinded by some form of domestic politics bias ever thought that Iran could defeat the US in a war. That's like predicting that a five year old could beat a grown man in a fistfight. Outlast, maybe (and only if, as has so far been the case, the US lacks the political will to launch a ground invasion). Defeat, no. Of course, there are plenty of unastute geopolitical commenters, and there are plenty of people who are blinded by domestic politics bias.

I personally have never argued that Iran had any serious chance of defeating the US in a war.

However, that does not necessarily make the war a good idea for the American people. That's a separate matter.

For me personally, in the sense of my own personal self-interest, I'm not sure whether the war has been good, bad, or neither.

I have probably indirectly been affected by the higher oil prices, but I'm not sure to what extent. I imagine probably badly, but I haven't done the research to find out for sure.

Crude oil prices remain, for now at least, about 1.5 times what they were before the war. It's about the same for retail gasoline and diesel prices in the US. Whatever is going on in the Strait of Hormuz right now, it hasn't translated into lower prices so far at least. I do not think this is because Iranian exports are being blockaded. Iran's share of total world oil and oil products production was not even close to high enough before the war to explain the current high global prices.

I think that the chance of Iran ever using nuclear weapons against the US even if it builds them is so low that it's not something I have ever worried about. In my opinion, the Iranian leadership acts much more like a typical rationally self-interested government than like the "suicidal fanatics who would use a nuke the second they got it" that some consider them. So I'm not significantly more worried about them nuking me, even if they got nukes and delivery systems, than I am about Russia or China nuking me. Which is to say, almost not at all. I believe that almost certainly mutually-assured destruction would hold with Iran. So whatever damage the war has done to Iran's nuclear program, I don't see it as a significant win for myself.

Ironically, I think that Trump supporters might actually have the most to complain about. The war has done significant damage to the populist movement that coalesced around Trump 11 years ago:

  1. It has sharpened the split between its pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions.
  2. It has meant Trump using a large part of his political capital and attention the last year on things that have nothing to do with the populist movement's goals, or at least for many people don't seem to have anything to do with those goals.
  3. It has, rightly or wrongly, made Trump look like yet another neocon-ish President who starts a war in the Middle East for obscure reasons that have little or nothing to do with the interests of the average American.
  4. It has helped the Democrats politically, thus increasing the chance that they soon take enough power to undo much of what Trump has done in domestic politics.

I don't think that many astute geopolitical commenters who weren't blinded by some form of domestic politics bias ever thought that Iran could defeat the US in a war.

I've been in arguments on this website with many who argued exactly that. There are lots more on twitter and throughout the mainstream media. Granted that this is not the most serious anti-war argument and so it shouldn't be the only argument discussed. But I feel compelled to seriously rebuke it because the idea that Iran was winning and America lost has seriously infected a lot of people and it colors other views about other things.

Anyways, I appreciate a fairly neutral take. In my circles I think I have heard the strongest criticisms of the war from MAGA and other Trump supporters. My argument has been that they are wrong because Trump winning in Iran gives Trump more power to renegotiate global trade (which is exactly how he's reindustrializing the American heartland).

I've been in arguments on this website with many who argued exactly that. There are lots more on twitter and throughout the mainstream media.

Yes, when it comes to people arguing that Iran could militarily (as opposed to politically) defeat the US in a war, I classify those in the unastute or biased category. Or engagement bait. Twitter is mostly made up of engagement bait, as far as I can tell.

Unastute doesn't mean unintelligent. But some people aren't really aware of the enormous difference in military power between the two countries.

My argument has been that they are wrong because Trump winning in Iran gives Trump more power to renegotiate global trade (which is exactly how he's reindustrializing the American heartland).

What's the mechanism by which winning in Iran would give Trump more power to renegotiate global trade?

It’s like what happened in Venezuela: the more that comes under America’s control, the more leverage America has in negotiating with other countries.

We want to tariff China to avoid them dumping cheap goods and bankrupting our manufacturers, but Europe wants to profit as the middleman mediating Chinese goods, so now we control the supply of oil that feeds Europe and China doesn’t.

We want Asian capital to fuel an American factory build-up so we can wean ourselves off Chinese rare-earth metals, now we control the supply of oil Asia needs.

This is all done out in the open, South Korea planning 8 nuclear power plants in the US, India announcing a $15 Billion steel plant in Iowa, Europe complying with the latest sanctions against Iran. All told Trump is redirecting hundreds of billions of dollars into America’s economy, which is a much more effective use of his time than negotiating with Lisa Murkowski and Mitch McConnell. He’s making good on his campaign to Reindustrialize and he’s using executive power to do it.

This stuff will compound. By acquiring a controlling stake in Venezuelan oil, Trump is making America more powerful in energy than OPEC. So OPEC can either cut deals to supply energy where Trump wants it, or they can suffer outages while Iran festers — America is fine in either outcome, which gives Trump the most leverage. So he can negotiate an expansion of the Abraham Accords, the beginning of a lasting peace in the Middle East, more investment for America, etc.

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