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 -
(1) Three dead American servicemen confirmed by Centcom
(2) A disinformation war is happening in regards to whether a school in Iran was hit, and if it were hit, whether its destruction was caused by Iran, Israel, or America. 100+ Iranian girls were killed.
(3a) It isn’t clear why negotiations failed with Iran. A day before the attack, the designated Omani mediator asserted that Iran conceded fully on enrichment and nuclear weapons: “The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb,” said Albusaidi, describing the understanding as “something completely new” compared to the previous nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama. He said the negotiations have produced an agreement on “zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling it a breakthrough that makes the enrichment argument “less relevant.” On existing stockpiles inside Iran, Albusaidi said that “there is agreement now that this will be down-blended to the lowest-level possible … and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.”
(3b) It appears that Witkoff and Kushner were instrumental in the decision to strike Iran: ”Witkoff and Jared Kushner, U.S. officials said. They told him the talks had gone badly: Tehran wasn’t willing to end its nuclear enrichment or dismantle its missile program, the officials said. That further confirmed for Trump that he had one option left, the officials said. The U.S. also had intelligence that Iran considered attacking American targets before Trump authorized strikes, a senior administration official said, adding a sense of urgency to the president’s decision. U.S. casualties and damage to American interests would be higher unless the U.S. moved first, the senior official said.”
I find it tremendously frustrating that Iran can be indirectly and directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians over decades and decades but suddenly this is a huge problem.
I think it's a sign that most westerners are fundamentally unprepared to defend their societies from aggression and stagnation.
I think it's good, actually, when people push back on their government killing civilians for bad reasons, and the bigger problem by far is that we're much too quick to accept nebulous assertions of national security as a justification for collateral damage. If the US were intervening to stop the IRI from massacring protestors, the comparison would have some bearing, but that isn't what is happening.
Notably, there was fairly little consternation over coalition-inflicted civilian casualties in Mosul or Raqqa because it was generally accepted that ISIS was Really Bad and coalition forces were trying to stop them (even if not for purely selfless reasons) and taking reasonable precautions while dealing with an adversary using human shields. US airstrikes more broadly were criticized because there was no clear aim/end beyond killing terrorists and the target selection was often incredibly careless/callous. By contrast, this current campaign looks like gunboat diplomacy at best.
I think it speaks more to the damage the Iraq War (and to a much lesser extent Libya) did to the credibility of military interventionism. Many, if not most people have no faith that these actions aren't going to squander a bunch of money and lives for no worthwhile outcome.
More options
Context Copy link
Huh? What does Iran have to do with any of the problems afflicting Americans domestically? Sex recession, unaffordable homes, the meaning crisis, woke more broadly? This is just another foreign policy distraction because it's the only thing elite American conservatives have to address their own meaning crisis.
Precisely.
No Iranian ever called me an incel.
Like the similar statement by Muhammed Ali: How do you know, do you speak Persian?
We know because their religion still promises you 72 virgins. One captured by Western feminism would not.
Feminism has nothing to do with the fact that low status men are an object of derision everywhere and there are more men than women in Iran in every age bracket up to about age 55.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People die in war and conflict. Iran is a country actively engaged in killing its own people and those abroad (civilian and otherwise). People are arguing about the alleged death of some school children as if this event means that Iran should be allowed to go back to killing whoever they want.
That is stupid.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but look at the other side - just because America and Israel kill the current leadership does not in any way guarantee that Iran's future is any brighter.
Absolutely, we have a millions reasons why getting involved is a bad idea.
This isn't one of them - but it has gotten some of the most play on social media.
It's a shallow emotional appeal that makes no logical sense, but that is where the population is at right now. It's embarrassing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's also an issue with Hollywood, videogames, and the US & Israeli militaries being too good at what they do. Especially for the US, who can often afford to put a premium on civilian lives due to overwhelming firepower and distance, many people seem to think that mistakes no longer happen in warfare, explosions are limited to arm's reach like those sword-missiles, missiles and bullets are always precisely on target, and any collateral damage or civilian target hit must have only been deliberate.
I'm not sure the US is prepared for a near-peer conflict where they can't afford to be so careful. There was a West Point (?) article on this very premise I read years ago, but haven't been able to find it since.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link