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 -
Trump has given a "red line" to Iran about killing protestors, but we still aren't seeing US involvement as deaths move into the thousands, reportedly. If the regime follows through with its claims, it will be executing many if not most of the thousands it has arrested.
I have an essay on my view that the US/West/Israel should clearly intervene in the Transnational Thursday thread, but the Culture War dynamics strike me as interesting in that it's not really Culture War Classic material. Traditionally, the Left has been soft on Iran and the Right has been hawkish. Iran has tried to kill Trump and Trump officials, as revenge for the Soleimani assassination.
There's a strong anti-interventionist Right and Left. During the 12-Day War, Trump went from tweeting about regime change, to abruptly demanding cessation of hostilities, which Israel and Iran complied with. (I think had the war continued the regime would already have fallen, given how easily Israel was bombing them.) This is something that's already kicked off, unlike the Maduro rendition. My understanding is that action got more popular in the polls having succeeded, though it's an open question what Venezuela's fate will be.
The Right strongly criticized Obama for declaring a red line in Syria, and then backing off. In hindsight, I think it would have been correct to have intervened against Assad. Here, I think there's a clear cost-benefit analysis case, whether you care about the plight of the Iranian people or the amoral realist power dynamics for America First Global Superpower Edition.
Trump really needs to intervene militarily here now. Destroy the Revolutionary Guards headquarters and take out their top brass. This minimizes deaths of Iranian people. Falsely telling the Iranian people that he'd help so they risk their lives and die only for Trump to later back out and allow the regime to continue would be an abject moral failure.
If Trump can properly fix Venezuela, Iran and Cuba by replacing their regimes with sane governments he'll genuinely deserve the Nobel peace prize.
The Iranian government is approximately sane. They need their religious fervor in order to (1) sustain their already low TFR, (2) incentivize high births among the intelligent [who otherwise would leave or not have so many kids], and (3) encourage bravery among the men who will certainly be dying against Israel this century. It doesn’t hurt that (4) it also promotes alliances with other Muslims in the region. Without Islam, Arabs would be a lot less resistant to the idea of America and Israel completely destroying them. If you were dictator of Iran and had the best interest of Iranians at heart, IMO you would be forced to retain the religious component of their governance, even without considering the huge gains in life satisfaction that come with religiosity. (And even the veil — women having to wear a modest veil likely increases their happiness given the longterm problems that come with the culture of appearance-obsession that plagues Western women).
The idea that “secularism” is sane for Iran is silly. The idea that democracy is remotely viable should be disproven per the long history of America interfering with democracies.
You're seriously arguing that the Iranians are happier with Shia fundamentalism imposed upon them? Bold I must say. Why all the mass protests over the years I wonder? (Including some specifically over veiling.)
Are you aware that Iran already has a famously high rate of plastic surgery?
Are you aware Iran has a famously high rate of brain drain?
Are you aware the Islamic government actually instituted policies to decrease the TFR and increase female education? (Whoops.)
Are you aware that Persians are not Arabs?
Are you aware that the extremist version of Shia Islam the Iranian Islamic regime adheres to increases conflict with basically all of its Sunni neighbors?
"Approximately" is doing a hell of a lot of work in the "approximately sane" evaluation.
Why all the mass protests in America or France? This signals that people have opinions, it isn’t a valid indicator of predicted happiness of social policies. I mean, toddlers and teenagers protest everything from authority, but they seldom are able to predict the longterm outcome of their desired proposals. This is the sin of democracy, that people mistake mass opinion for predictive ability.
Are you aware that Iran has half our suicide rate, one eighth of our drug overdose rate, a heavily subsidized and expansive healthcare system, and one third our intentional homicide rate? Probably not. Perhaps you’ll accuse them of cooking the books.
Yes, hence why I mentioned it: this doesn’t apply to the religious cohort, which is why they have an interest in maintaining their religious “extremism”. Otherwise they will all leave.
Of course but when it comes to the risk that Israel poses in the region, you can’t ignore that Iran being Islamic is helpful for speaking with other Islamic nations.
You just obviously have no idea what you're talking about when you try to directly compare protests in the US or even France to those in Iran, before now or these ones. The dynamics are totally different when it's an actual police state.
Ah, this is the "Maduro is the true conservative" perspective. Do you know what "cherry picking" is?
They have hyperinflation ffs, among many other critical economic failures. Trying to find a few metrics where Iran might have a good stat doesn't overturn the obvious reality that it's a shithole country because it's been held back by economically illiterate leadership for nearly 50 years.
Ahahahahahaha. Iran has been and continues to be hated and feared by nearly all of its Sunni neighbors. You're trying to cherry pick an instance of slightly improved relations with the Saudis to defend the insane proposition that Iran's version of Shia Islam makes it easier to deal with its Sunni neighbors. Gulf Arab states have collaborated with the US and Israel against Iran.
Did you know that Iran and the Taliban have nearly gone to war a time or two?
What's next? ISIS has an easy time dealing with other Islamic states thanks to Islam?
Protestant and Catholic countries have always had better relations due to Christianity as a commonality?
These are pretty significant indicators. Especially if we want to “free” an “oppressed” population and deliver them American-Grade™️ Values. If our values lead to worse results for the average person than the average person in Iran, we should rethink our ability to improve other nations and instead consider why we’re doing so poorly. Their life expectancy is also tied with ours (and at a better trajectory) and they have half the obesity. The question of course is what they would look like without sanctions, with an extra 1 trillion.
The proposition is that, while an Islamic Iran has something important in common with its Muslim neighbors, a non-Islamic Iran would lose that card altogether and could never leave pariah status. This may not be a factor today but it may be a factor in the future. Consider from the Atlantic Council —
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-saudi-arabia-china-deal-one-year/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not imposed upon them, it's home-grown. They chose it in 1979.
Are you aware of the basic facts of the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution?
Familiar with buyer's remorse?
Capable of understanding its' been nearly 50 years and the theocratic regime does not have democratic legitimacy, since it's an illiberal, sham democracy?
Sure, lots of Death-To-America rallies, lots of Westernized Iranians who hadn't fled (among others) getting killed. Basically consolidation of power. Worked, too.
They don't need democratic legitimacy. With most of the people they have religious legitimacy, and for the malcontents they have the sword.
They executed a lot of commies and other insufficiently Islamic co-revolutionaries. Lots of the country immediately regretted taking out the Shah. That was decades ago and things only got worse.
Ok, so you agree then that the present regime is imposing Shia theocracy on its populace?
This hasn't been true for a long time.
They're a Shia theocratic regime ruling over Shiites. No imposing necessary.
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