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 -
No, what we have is two mutually exclusive attitude that US policy keeps ping-ponging between due to the difference mapping reasonably cleanly to Republican vs Democrat and Populist vs Technocrat.
The broadly Democrat-coded attitude is one of sympathy (if not active support) for Islamic revolutionary movements. These views are framed in terms of "Decolonization" their opposition to the left's hated enemy the right. The right is the outgroup, revolutionary Islam is the fargroup and if revolutionary Islam can inflict some casualties on the right that is a "win" in the left's book. This is why Carter left the Shah hanging out to dry, this is why Clinton and Obama offered backing to the various "Moderates" who would become ISIS/ISIL, this is where "Queers for Palestine" come from, and it is why they think that the killing of Qassim Soleimani is something the rest of us ought to be upset about while the killing of John Christopher Stevens is not.
The Republican-coded attitude is one of "Fuck Around and Find Out". That is that if the if US is going to occupy the role of hegemon we ought to play the role. To the extent that there has ever been a consistent through-line to US foreign policy, that line has been "Don't touch the boats", and in the eyes of the MAGA crowd that is what this is ultimately about. The Iranian regime thought that by laundering their attacks through proxies like HAMAS and the Houthis they could immunize themselves from retaliation, turns out they were wrong.
The US public doesn't want this war and there is a reason why Trump ran on America first and opposition to war rather than neoconservatism.
The republican position is that these wars are a giant waste, lead to massive refugee waves, cost trillions, kill Americans and grow the surveillance state. There is a reason why Matt Walsh, Nick Fuentes, Thomas Massie and Tucker are going hard against this war. It is a war for big government that kills typically red coded voters.
More options
Context Copy link
I am going to laugh quite bitterly if this whole Iranian adventure turns out to have as a promary purpose being the least-PR-unfriendly method of ending the Houthis: by removing their sponsor and letting the Saudis take care of them out of the public eye, as rooting them out via US boots on the ground would create remarkably negative photos for the domestic crowd.
Houthis aren't a puppet government set by Iran, it's popular movement because they have different version of Islam here, so this wouldn't end them, they will have less missiles and that's all.
More options
Context Copy link
twelve years of bombing Houthis did nothing. The US lost its largest naval operation since world war 2 against houthis that have no navy.
Iran has way more capable systems in far larger numbers when it comes to disturbing shipping and way better geography.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link