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 -
Well I too lived through this era. I even lived in Iraq and Afghanistan for a spell.
I think you're granting a lot of explanatory power to the GWOT that it does not deserve whatsoever.
Trump as a singular individual and a Great Man of history is a major variable for sure. His critique of the GWOT was relevant to his popularity and MAGA, but it hasn't exactly informed his foreign policy decisions, as I already noted. He's clearly no isolationist.
But did the GWOT have much to do with immigration, the single biggest issue for Trump? (No, not it did not.)
The Great Awokening, for another significant factor, is not exactly closely tied to foreign policy at all.
The constitutional issues we have about domestic issues, like the expansion of the commerce clause, long precede the GWOT and have nothing to do with foreign policy. FDR and the Warren court have a lot of explanatory power here, not the GWOT.
In general, US domestic politics are pretty separate from foreign policy. Most voters list it pretty far down as their concerns go.
Iran is not Libya and Iranians are not Libyans, so that's a major set of differences.
The comparison I've used multiple times is actually an oil-rich Turkey. Maybe try that comparison and see how it feels.
A critical skill in life is evaluating appropriate analogies, not inappropriate ones. The intervention in Libya is at least in the right ballpark. (For example, someone else unironically brought up bombing in WWII for fuck's sake in evaluating the potential efficacy of a precision bombing campaign today.)
Last time, Trump went from tweeting about regime change to suddenly demanding a cessation of hostilities after merely 12 days. Don't confuse intensity of domination with the time length of domination. Had the Israeli air campaign continued, they were on track to hit certain key economic facilities in retaliation for Iranian targeting of Israeli domestic infrastructure. We would have at some point almost certainly seen civil unrest caused by economic deterioration months ago.
Last time we dominated them hard enough to put a major dent in their missile and nuclear programs, but did not aim at devastating domestic security forces and economic capacities. There was no active domestic opposition on the ground. As the months passed, Iran's economy deteriorated further without having lost major oil or commercial capacities to the IAF, and now there is major domestic opposition.
More options
Context Copy link