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 -
Technically, the idea that Iran controls Hezbollah is speculation just like the idea that Pakistan controls Lashkar-e-Taiba is speculation. In practice, it's pretty clear that Iran at the very least has substantial influence over Hezbollah, more than any other country does.
I'm not sure what this means. Iran controls Hezbollah, or at least it did until a few days ago. As far as your claim goes that what Iran does with Hezbollah is "pretty typical foreign policy," it does not seem to me that you have sustained this claim.
Anyway, you don't seem to dispute that (1) Iran substantially controls Hezbollah; (2) Hezbollah has repeatedly launched attacks directed at Israel in general; and (3) Iran's leadership has, in substance, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
To any reasonable person, this is pretty good evidence that -- at a minimum -- that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a serious risk it would attempt to use them against Israel.
What it means is that if you are convinced that Iran controls Hezbollah, you should probably also be convinced that Pakistan controls Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar-e-Taiba is believed to have directly attacked India before. However, Pakistan has never used nuclear weapons against India.
So far in history no country has ever used a nuclear weapon against another since WW2, no matter what kind of conventional warfare it was engaged in otherwise. A country has never even used a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear-armed state, much less a nuclear-armed one that would retaliate by destroying every major city in the attacking country.
I'm kinda skeptical about this - can you give me links?
I have a few questions, the first two being hypothetical:
First, if you were in charge of Israel; and a nuclear bomb exploded one day in Ariel; and you were 80% sure it was Iran behind it, would you give the order to destroy every large city in Iran? What if you were 100% certain, but if Iran claimed it was a rogue general who had ordered the strike?
Second, if you were in charge of Israel, and one of your cargo ships were seized, and you were pretty sure Iran was behind it, would your response be informed at all by whether or not Iran had a nuclear arsenal?
Third, do you agree that at least until recently, Iran was led -- in large part -- by religious fanatics?
Fourth, are you disputing my argument that since (1) Iran had repeatedly attacked Israel; and (2) Iran's leadership has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, it follows that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, there is a serious risk it would attempt to use them against Israel?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link