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 -
I am pretty sure that Iran and Israel have been going at that for decades, so at this point the question of who escalated at which points is moot. Israel had Trump kill Qasem Soleimani, then Iran helped Hamas commit Oct 7, then Nethanyahu killed a couple of ten thousands in Gaza, and now convinced Trump to kill the Ayatollah. We will see what Iran will do next.
But at this point, it feels to me that this is a conflict without good guys, and the rest of the world should simply stay out of it. Perhaps after five years of ground warfare both sides will wisen up and deescalate. Or perhaps the religious nutjobs will stay in power.
That may very well be so, but the question I was addressing is what Iran can do -- as a practical matter -- to stop being attacked by Israel and/or the United States. One possibility would be to acquire nuclear weapons and/or otherwise get so strong that (perhaps) nobody would dare attack them. A second possibility would be for Iran to (1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and any other similar proxy organizations which is uses to engage in terrorist campaigns against Israel; and (2) stop calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, etc.
"But that's not fair! Israel is the aggressor!" I can hear people saying. I disagree, but even if that were true, Iran could still take the second option.
With respect to most of the conflicts Israel is involved in, I would agree. But with Iran, I am not so sure. My impression is that Iran is fomenting Shiite unrest throughout the Middle East, including in the Persian Gulf. This implicates vital American interests.
The problem is that it is hard to know if a deescalation would be reciprocated. If your opposite is playing a non-zero-sum game, he might reciprocate. Or he might be playing chess, where any attempt to deescalate will fail because your opponent is committed to crushing you no matter what. Together with institutional inertia, this tends to keep negative-sum conflicts going for a long time.
Sure. Iran is one of several regional players using ethnic tensions to advance their influence. For example, Daesh ('ISIS') was Sunni, as was Al-Qaida. It is perfectly reasonable to be against religious terrorists both when they are funded by Iran and by Saudi-Arabia, though.
This is not literally true. If Iran takes over the whole ME, that will not cause a single American to starve. Ukraine has a vital interest that Putin does not take Kiev.
The interests of the US in the ME are hegemonic. That does not mean that they are invalid -- being a hegemon is a good deal for the US voters, generally, and also for some of your client states (e.g. in Europe).
In this case, it's not that hard to know. Israel clearly has the power to roll in and crush Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
If food is the only consideration, then sure. But at the moment oil is also a vital resource. And I'm sure you are aware that a major fraction of the world's oil comes from the Persian Gulf region.
Syria is an obvious counterexample: they pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel and were rewarded by getting bombed into oblivion, having their territory seized, and just generally getting humiliated.
This is obviously not true. We've had a two year test case in which Israel tried and failed to roll in and crush Hamas, the smallest and weakest of its opponents.
When exactly was this unconditional surrender?
And what do you suppose is the reason for the failure you are alleging?
They gave up as much territory as the IDF was willing to seize without even trying to fight for it and then stationed troops to prevent any other Syrians from trying to fight the invaders. I'd call that "unconditional surrender".
Because their ground forces are totally inept, because they have zero tolerance for casualties and because they have no coherent strategy for actually winning wars.
So you decline to tell me WHEN this unconditional surrender took place? I'm asking so I can look it up and see if there is any merit to what you are saying. It's a very simple question. You claim that Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel" -- I am asking WHEN this unconditional surrender took place. What month and year?
I disagree, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. In that case, I will modify my point as follows:
Israel clearly has the power to roll in and cause mucho damage in Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
December 8th, 2024.
Like any conqueror, rather than causing mucho damage they would greatly prefer to absorb their territory with minimal resistance, like Area C. The current generation of Israeli leadership is also considerably less patient than that which made peace with the Jordanians and Egyptians (who, might I add, receive billions of American taxpayer dollars every year to stay at peace) and has demonstrated far less goodwill towards those who chose collaboration or submission.
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