site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13053 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.

4
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.

Meanwhile in reality the straits of Hormuz are not actually open: https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/

Oil and diesel are considerably more expensive as compared to the start of the war, despite Trump's heroic efforts to squander the US strategic oil reserve (now at its lowest level since 1982) and China's decision to reduce imports: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil

If the straits were actually open, as they were before the war, then we would see similar prices as before the war. But they aren't, so we don't. We see $90 oil, not $60 oil. In diesel and petrol, it's worse still.

The Iranian regime has not collapsed. Remember, this war was not supposed to be about oil. Trump was trying to crush the Iranian military and its proxies, trying to induce regime change (as seen by the strikes against Iran's leaders). He failed, as seen by them retaining the power to strike where they please, even far afield against Saudi Arabia's east-west pipeline, which is now at half capacity. They can attack it again if they want.

The US is weaker, poorer and less well respected around the world as a result of this war. It was a huge error. The US gained nothing. The US lost its Gulf bases, which are now rubble. The US lost its positions in Iraq, which have been evacuated. The US lost radars and expended huge amounts of munitions. The US inflicted some damage on Iran but at great expense. No land has been secured, there have been zero territorial gains for America. The Houthis have made territorial gains, Israel had to pull out of Lebanon... How is that winning?

The US entered this war under the delusional belief that Iran was ripe for revolution, the Kurds would rise up and the security forces would collapse. That was why they tried assassinations at the beginning of the war. But the delusion was unreal, so they switched goals to destroying Iran's military capability later. And then reopening the straits of Hormuz. Then a blockade. The US has been going backwards, not forwards.

Iran meanwhile has been advancing with their wargoals, trying to improve on their prewar status quo. Sanctions relief. A toll on the straits. Return of frozen funds. These are now on the table whereas they were not before. They seized the initiative in March and have held onto it the whole time.

>leaders assassinated

>military destroyed

>sanctions

>blockade

>iran is winning

As far as I can see the post above doesn't state Iran is winning, only that USA is not winning.

I do not think a country can win a war, in general. A country can only lose a war, in the case that it ceases to exist. But there is no such thing as a country winning the war, because a country is not an entity that can experience the benefits from the war and thus have some measure of the victory.

People can win benefits in a war. Citizens can win lower prices through their country's higher geopolitical influence. MIC lobbies can win loads of money. Presidents can win reelections. This is all in the descending order of how well-distributed the benefits of a war are.

No one wins benefits simply by bombing some abstract enemy in a vacuum, except perhaps the very thin benefits of morale.

If you want to show America is winning, demonstrate the Americans that are winning - winning something.

A nation certainly can win a war and reap benefits, but the US never quite was one, I think.

As long as you're defining a nation as a group of people.

No; as a kin group.

Of people. And not a territory with a particular set of borders and a flag.

Yes, correct. Though the relationship between the two isn't so arbitrary. The land and the people coevolve.

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