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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
'Many things are happening, so many things are happening at once that sometimes I have no idea what's going on.'
This is likely an apocryphal quote misattributed to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in March 2025 via the memetic slop factory. It's one of the factory's better creations and it captures my feeling this afternoon.
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic, publishes the above account regarding his participation in a special kind of Signal group chat 15 days ago. In this chat strikes against the Houthis were planned, out in the open, with Jeffrey privy to it all. According to the account he gives in the article, Jeffrey was invited by national security advisor Michael Waltz. According to Jeffrey, he was confused, skeptical, and suspicious of this chat.
Seriously, you should read the whole thing.
This group chat led to another group chat-- "Houthi PC small group". If true, I am sure Jeffrey's concerns about entrapment and imprisonment grew as he was, allegedly, joined by the Secretary of Defense, Vice President Vance, Tulsi Gabbard. In total, "18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials" as they discussed, coordinated, and monitored strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen-- and presumably some other things.
Nonetheless, as Jeffrey fretted over his strange-getting-stranger position in a Signal chat group among, allegedly, the highest officials in US public office, these individuals were discussing what to do about the Houthi problem. Jeffrey identifies JD Vance's chat avatar as a cautious, moderating voice on the 14th of March:
Jeffrey Goldberg, in addition to relaying the above and other interactions that went on in the chat he was in, also posted screenshots as receipts-- just in case you thought he was crazy.
In Jeffrey Goldberg's words: "I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive."
After the chat, bombs get dropped, Jeffrey confirms the timeline matches what he saw planned, and the chat goes wild.
Some things to talk about as mentioned in the article:
Journalisms. Jeffrey surely had a responsibility to leave this group chat when he figured this was a real thing really happening and he wasn't supposed to be there. As in, legally he shouldn't be privy to classified stuff. On the other hand, if true, this is what journalists are for. If Jeffrey had simply left the chat and reported it as such there's no story. I'm not sure how much I buy the "I'm just a lowly journalist who couldn't believe his eyes if this is real or not" shtick, but also can't really fault the guy for staying in the chat. After all, he was invited.
Security and legal concerns. If the Trump admin is conducting official business on an open-source platform that is supposed to scrub its history this seems probably illegal. It is possible these messages are documented some other way, but it's possible they are not. Just as it is possible Signal is a totally secure, encrypted messaging program, but it's possible it is not.
Goldberg highlights the dialogue that focuses on concerns of US-Euro relations. Wish I could read the full discussions. It seems fine to give Europe a carrot of engaging Houthis -- helping to secure their trade in the Suez -- in addition to the stick as they move to rearm. I don't think the American public has much love for Houthi rebels, though escalating involvement is a concern. I think this supports the idea that this administration is closely wedded to the news cycle rather than strategy or vision. Consideration of what this does for Europe should be second to deterring disruption to global trade-- which should have been priority from the beginning. We are missing lots of context.
What if Elon Musk was gas lighting and trolling journalists with the power and resources of the United States Government behind him?
The level of ineptitude in OPSEC failure for this article to be real is staggering. It blows my mind. Which, as Jeffrey also suspected, makes one wonder if it wasn't intentional. Maybe Jeffrey was invited to one chat to be leveraged for something else, then accidentally invited to the Houthi PC chat. He might have been supposed to be in all those chats to leak it all. Comparisons to Crooked Hillary and her e-mail server abound.
To end, VP Vance reportedly typing “a prayer for victory” after a course of action was decided upon. Followed by two of our nation's best adding "prayer emoji" reactions. All of it is a bit on the nose for Clown World Simulation theory. Exciting times!
No discussion yet of this nugget, apparently from Vance?
Vance and Trump usually seem pretty united publically. Is there an interpretation I'm missing here that doesn't show a rift between them? This doesn't just say, "hey there will also be these other consequences." This says the president is inconsistent and is not aware of his own inconsistency. And further implies Vance can't just bring it up with Trump for clarity either. And that this group he's messaging (or the group he thinks he's messaging) already knows that.
Combine this with Vance steering Trump during the televised Zelenskyy debacle. I think Trump is really just governing based on raw emotional energy—these Houthis are causing us trouble, so let's fuck 'em over. And then it falls on Vance, Hegseth, etc to figure out how to actually do that. The details don't concern the big man.
I enjoyed all the direct quotes! Very fun.
Could be. I don't think it is impossible that Trump, at some level, recognizes he benefits from some brakes, and he may find Vance suitable for this role. I don't think these quotes suggest some massive rift rather than topic disagreement or the reality of their different roles. In the sausage factory is one thing, but the misalignment going public is another matter. The media is already trying to drive a wedge. Now Trump doesn't like being seen as undermined, so Vance may now have to grovel a bit to not be seen as embarrassing the big man.
Vance advocating for taking some more time to build up a narrative-- Trump wants it done if it can be done. If Vance is considering a 2028 run, then ideally he maximizes all the positive Trump association while minimizing the negative Trump association in order to grow his support. This would make some disagreement desirable. If Vance was worried about narrative and optics, as he is quoted, then I think he was wrong. US bombs dropping on Houthis was overdue. Putting Suez back into full business is also overdue, but who knows if that's achievable with bomb droppings.
As a purely practical matter, if Trump makes dire threats to the Houthis and bombs them without achieving results then that seems clearly worse than doing nothing
The bombing is a result. If you engage in piracy you eat bombs. This should be the expected result of engaging in piracy. It's the least you can do. This might be insufficient to dissuade these particular Islamic martyrs from engaging in piracy. They may require some other demonstration or diplomacy, but they should receive no exemption from the first expected result. It may also be a valuable demonstration for other non-martyrs that might consider piracy.
What if getting bombed is the goal? So far the only thing bombing has achieved is making the Houthis look indomitable and costing the American taxpayer several billion dollars.
Yes, they want to impose costs on the rest of the world which includes the costs of bombing them. That's fine. There is still risk of escalation, but if we want to bomb them in perpetuity and they want to impose costs on the rest of the world in perpetuity so be it. If this is the reality then we live in world that's a little less functional. So be it. It won't be in perpetuity I hope!
I would not describe Houthis as indomitable, although they do have a very high tolerance for eating bombs. The alternatives are to refuse to engage -- which does cost less money with no boats in Red Sea -- or formally accept a new status quo. Or, if you take them at their word, make Israel do something? The world could also reward them with some sort of official designation and hope that buys them off, but I agree with the global order here. You don't get rewarded with shooting and looting civilian ships. Not without some pain or, in this case, the lives of their martyrs.
They are the big dog in Yemen. Woof! They dislike Jews, Sauds, UAE, the US, and they like Iran. Great. These are unpleasant people that would happily lob my head off. Bombing theocratic Islamic fundamentalists, or most any other dedicated piratical states is a reasonable thing to do in response to their piracy. That's a sensible world.
So to sum up, American taxpayers must fund several dozens of fully furnished hospitals or schools worth of munitions to blow up some fanatic who eats one piece of dirt per day with no prospect of stopping said fanatic's friends from doing what they would have done anyway because, uh, something something global order?
If the "global order" is what you care about then the far simpler solution for America would be to crack down on Israel, a country currently invading half of its neighbors and flagrantly defying every post-war international institution which also happens to be entirely dependent on American support to sustain said invasions. We don't need to "take the Houthis at their word" because there have been two ceasefires and in both cases the Houthis ceased fire, something that can't be said about the Israelis.
A sensible world would be one where we don't waste billions of dollars on a strategy we know won't work when we could save billions on one that we know would work
You said no prospect, not me. It is true the US could have considered imposing costs on Israel in response to her and Europe's arms being twisted by America's (mutual) adversaries. I think this would likely encourage further arm twisting and also doesn't seem quite as simple as you say. You sound very certain that America could have easily ended Israel's incursion into Gaza and lifted Israel's decades long naval blockade from Gaza (was also a demand I'm not sure if they dropped that one) and avoided [this] cost. Perhaps American limitations do not end in the Red Sea with the Houthis. The US might be unprepared or unwilling to bomb Israel hard enough to appease requests of a ceasefire. Maybe sanctions of arm sales aren't heavy enough to stop a response in October, November, or December of 2023.
The Houthi's grand humanitarian mission started on the 19th of October, 2023. It has involved hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones being fired at Israel. They have attacked some 100 different merchant vessels. I don't know how many times they've fired at American warships, but probably a few.
Coordination requires understanding. "Don't do a piracy to twist my arm" is a pretty good understanding. "Don't invade other countries" is also an understanding, but at least when Israel invades other countries these days it is mostly its neighbors and doesn't tax Italian and Egyptian shipping. It's unfortunate Houthis are only in a position to play one card, are beholden to the interests of larger nations, etc. We all face limitations.
I'm not really interested in litigating Israeli's war justifications, US obligations to Israel or vice versa, or to which great honor we can bestow on Houthis or Israel. Or America for that matter. It's been done a million times. You can consider any or each as evil and duplicitous as you wish. You'll read smarter people than I. I am but a simple, sensible ""global order"" (double scare quotes, double scary--- if I go triple you're donezo) enjoyer.
I don't think you should trust any nation or, at least, take any nation's stated justifications at face value. Least of all Iran, Israel, or Islamic fundamentalists. It'd be nice if we could trust each other not to shoot at merchant shipping and agree to punish people that defect from this agreement. That's all, really.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link