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 -
I wrote up a post late last week about Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran's major nuclear facilities. Consider this a follow-up:
On the one hand, this seems literally incredible. On the other hand, Vance is on TV right now answering questions about the process, so they're committed to the bit, and it would be a rather strange thing to lie about. On reflection, it's possible that both belligerents have taken enough punishment that they're ready to call it a draw.
If this is not real, it's going to be about as humiliating as imaginable for the administration. If it is real, on the other hand, it's going to throw a lot of the discussion over the last few weeks, and particularly since the airstrikes, into fairly sharp relief. I'm particularly interested to discuss Nick Fuentes's remarkable predictive accuracy with regards to this new development.
There's been some discussion lately about whether it is better, on breaking events, to hold one's tongue and wait for further developments, or start talking immediately. Many have argued that it's better to wait. I disagree: When one of these things happens, and we want to talk about it, and we experience the nervousness that we might be making fools of ourselves if what we say is proven wrong by revelations tomorrow morning, in that moment we have an opportunity to be far closer to honesty, with others and with ourselves, than at any other time throughout the year. Uncertainty is the prerequisite for charity, and these moments of uncertainty force us to realize that we ourselves can, in fact, be wrong. People should be more open to talking about breaking news, not because it allows for hotter takes, but because it gives one skin in the game and favors rational analysis over sophistry. It is good for us all to call the coin before it has landed.
In that spirit: I think this is real. I think Iran and Israel have in fact agreed to a ceasefire and to an end to the war, and I think there's a high probability they'll stick to it. I think the strikes actually worked, and Iran's nuclear program has in fact been pretty thoroughly wrecked, with their timetable set back by, say, more than five years.
If this is what it appears to be, it's a hell of a thing.
As someone who argued for "wait two weeks", I actually agree with this, but the core ingredient is that it has to be a deliberate choice, and that the speaker willingly puts his credibility on the line. I still owe @fmac, who couldn't quite believe I was being serious, a reply, but this is part of why I said what I said in that post. Exposing yourself to the possibility of having your credibility shot is the mechanism by which just going with your gut ends up yielding superior results to meticulously calculating all the Bayesian probabilities.
Sure, only making predictions on things you are confident making predictions on is a bit of a cheat, this is why I always rolled my eyes at Scott's annual "calibrating" predictions. That said, there does need to be some space for "I honestly haven't a clue". There are cases where I can see a clear signal in the vibes (see "tides turning on trans" or "Elon Musk is cooked"), but there are others where I try to listen to the vibes, and all I can hear is noise, and I think it would be unwise to stake a claim under those circumstances.
More options
Context Copy link
Assuming it is real and Iran will stick to the ceasefire... what would that mean for Ukraine/Russia? What would that mean for USA/China? I mean, it would seem like the "Axis of Evil" would be a little off balance, no? That wouldn't be great for China, right? Or would it not affect much?
More options
Context Copy link
I hadn't considered that perspective. It isn't nervousness that I might be wrong that stops me from commenting on breaking news, it's the dearth of information. Anything I might say is going to be an uninformed opinion, and the same is true for everyone not in the administration. If people were able to argue without getting personal, maybe, but everybody gets so heated that even playful criticism wounds people - and to get like that over an event which doesn't have basic facts nailed down yet is madness.
But you are right about uncertainty and skin in the game promoting rational analysis over sophistry, and I loathe the idea of people thinking I'm scared of being wrong. So I would like to say I hope and believe that this is real and with that conditional I also hope and believe Netanyahu will retire within the next year.
More options
Context Copy link
I 100% believe waiting for further developments is better. Unless you are a direct actor, I believe there is negative value and insight following the news minute by minute. Without greater context, everything looks random and chaotic, offering no clearer understanding of the world. My own community transformed into a news feed and we've faced insight collapse, although some lovely contributors track less popular things, contextualizing them etc. illustrating the problem precisely.
Iran launched missiles 30 mins ago. The ceasefire is over or rather is between certain groups, since multiple entities share/negotiate sovereignty within Iran. Let's see what this actually means, next week.
More options
Context Copy link
Half an hour ago, Iran's foreign minister said no ceasefire. Fifteen minutes ago, Iran's foreign minister said ceasefire.
On the topic of premature declarations, the second would be a mightily overconfident thing to say if no agreement were actually reached, so it sounds like there's something real. But given how today's gone, for all I know, nukes could be flying before I hit "comment."
More options
Context Copy link
Related: Israel phoning 20 Iranian generals and telling them that they will bomb their children unless they renounce the regime.
More options
Context Copy link
I pray that it is real.
More options
Context Copy link
I previously expressed some skepticism about the details of the US strike. And I noted that many on X were questioning it as well.
One narrative was that Trump executed some clearly telegraphed strikes on Fardow that didn’t accomplish a whole lot other than be a highly visible strike on the Iranian nuclear program. The 5d chess speculation was that this was a clearly telegraphed move that didn’t in fact cross any Iranian red lines as a way to appease the Iran hawks.
Now it appears that this Iranian attack on the Qatar military base did no damage, cost no lives, and, if Trump is to be taken literally, the Iranians called them up and told them it was coming.
And now we have a ceasefire.
Was this just all theater? If it were, what would look different?
Obviously it’s a good outcome. The only downside it see is that it makes the US look incredibly weak to be led around by Israel. But then again, that’s par for the course.
What a puzzling thing. Another downside would be further emboldening Israel, the Israel US lobby, and the pro war faction of our leaders.
Things will start to make much more sense once you understand that we are not playing chess (5-d, 3-d, or otherwise) Mr. Spock. We are playing poker.
More options
Context Copy link
Compounding on this aspect of the narrative, I see people theory crafting that Trump denied Israel their cause celebre to continue strikes against Iran. So they get ahead of Israel, without bombing any hospitals or apartment buildings, and then try to make it seem like everyone is even now, capiche?
I have no fucking clue how much of the theory crafting I see is true. I have no clue if this truce is even real. I've seen reports than Iran is reporting they know nothing about it, and other reporting saying it was back channeled through Qatar.
I've been trying to disengage from politics as best I'm able. Which isn't very. But an effort is being made. Largely because the information space is being too polluted to even be worth the effort of forming cogent or accurate models to discuss. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm waiting until the midterms. Either my life will be better or it won't. World War 3 will have begun, or it won't. Whatever day to day nonsense happens between now and then I'm powerless to effect, and seemingly being lied to from all directions.
I will say, re: the theory that Trump used the strikes to get ahead of Israel, if any of this shit is real, Trump is either the luckiest fucking man on the face of the Earth, or he truly is a 4d genius. If it's all bullshit, well, it's not that much different that Biden just announcing the that the Equal Rights Amendment passed with practically zero basis for actually asserting it. We're fully into Clown World already, and I'm not going to hold it too against Trump if he's bold faced lying and making shit up out of whole clothe like all the rest. At least he isn't trying to sterilize and mutilate children.
You can't fight against a man who has the Mandate of Heaven: history bends to his whim, success manifests in his chamberpot. All that the hero king touches turns to gold before his manifest destiny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is real. Iran not wanting a ceasefire and truce at this point would be literally crazy- and while they have a different value system from the west I'm pretty sure they're not literally crazy. Trump can definitely bully Israel up to a point, too, and they probably also want a ceasefire now they're taking casualties.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm no expert on Middle Eastern politics, but to me it looks like they agreed to a ceasefire because neither government has anything to gain from continued hostilities. Israel has already achieved its strategic objectives and Iran is struggling to effectively retaliate. Getting into a protracted war would be costly and destabilizing for both of them.
More options
Context Copy link
Israel just tried to blow up the Ayatollah. Multiple bunker buster strikes in Tehran, other cities in Iran. I don’t know if this technically counts as a ceasefire violation, so the deal may still be on?
EDIT (2:20 GMT) Iran is now launching ballistic missiles at Southern Israel. I’m seeing some sources saying that the ceasefire time is a bit ambiguous and might not start for another hour or two.
EDIT (4:35) It is now well past the agreed ceasefire time and both sides are still enthusiastically bombing each other.
More options
Context Copy link
Am I understanding this incorrectly or does this essentially mean "Israel gets 12 hours to do whatever it wants to Iran"?
I mean, you could say that avout any ceasefire. Most of them don't take effect immediately, and a lot of people keep their guns firing until the alotted time for various reasons (some professional, some personal).
More options
Context Copy link
By my reading, only "officially", while the "true" agreement is for a simultaneous ceasefire as described in the previous sentence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link