site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 16, 2025

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

'You don't have a sufficient explanation for a radioactive aluminum ring from the year 2003 which we've brought up 74x therefore you're in violation of your obligations under the safeguards agreement from 1974 w/re to the NPT and we cannot verify your nuclear program is for peaceful purposes' isn't really in the same category of violation as 'NPT member-state attacks IAEA inspected facility in another NPT member-state almost certainly using information gained from the IAEA inspectors themselves.'

One is the sort of violations you could likely find in any NPT member-state if they were subjected to 1/10th the harassment and silliness Iran has dealt with for decades and the other is a serious and meaningful violation of the NPT's explicit language.

The vast majority of the report is many years old which makes the conclusion now rather puzzling. The actual impetus appears to be the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but 60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT.

Not to mention how the report and the ensuing aftermath quickly revealed the IAEA is full of hostile spies which coordinate and communicate with non-member states who have secret nuclear programs.

The NPT itself does not specify any thresholds directly.

Each Non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

But the IAEA-Iran treaty also does not specify any thresholds.

I was surprised to learn that Iran kept being a party to the NPT after Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018. The 2025-05 report states that:

54 . Iran continues to cooperate with the Agency on matters of routine safeguards implementation, and the Agency implements a large verification effort in Iran commensurate with Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle and activities.61 However, in a number of respects as outlined in this report its cooperation with the Agency has been less than satisfactory, as described below.

86 . In light of the above assessment, the Director General reiterates his urgent call upon Iran to cooperate fully and effectively with the Agency. Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.

Or course, after the Trump bombing, they are now rectifying that mistake, and likely will not be a party to the NPT in 90 days.

Israel isn't a NPT member state.

The actual impetus appears to be the stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, but 60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT.

With modern centrifuges that's a few days away from material for efficient uranium bombs.

60% enriched uranium isn't itself a violation of the NPT

Israel isn't a NPT member state.

the United States is