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 -
The people who manipulated Trump into starting the war are the “traitors” in my book, though this isn’t the legal definition. Lindsey Graham shouldn’t be coached by Mossad on how to neurolinguistically program Trump’s 80yo mind into joining a war. That’s the most insane thing I have ever read. It is baffling that this happened. And I don’t trust “confirmed bachelor” Lindsey Graham in Tel Aviv in the Epstein era at all:
A law should be passed to deport people who do this to Mogadishu along with their nearest kin, extending even to second cousins, along with banning any of their interns of assistants from working in government. Imagine the best salesmen in the world working for years to figure out how to sell you something, and they are able to use a friend of yours to do so. They have an infinite budget and have collated tens of thousands of hours of your speeches and conversations to determine priming words and anchoring words according to your facial expressions and vocal tenor. Oh, and you’re 80 years old and easily impressionable. This is the capability of Mossad, plus infinitely more.
I would sooner support America formally declaring war on Israel than believe this, or support someone who believes this. This is not the assessment of the American intelligence community. This is an Israeli talking point.
The whole "US politicians go to Israel to touch the magic wall" was always weird to me. The fact AIPAC has so much sway annoys me, but it's America and any one with PAC-tier money at least has an "equal" shot at influence (this is such cope oh my god Citizens United was such a mistake).
The whole ridiculousness with the Mamdami x Cuomo debate of "as mayor of New York, how many microseconds after you win the election will it take you to board a plane for Israel" was absolutely sickening, although could be coped as "they obviously hate Mamdami and are trying to bait him"
But holy FUCK
This is an understatement. WHY ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT THIS OPENLY. WHY DO I KNOW THEY DID THIS?!?!? I can't remember which poster here is walking the razor line of almost getting banned for Jew-posting, but I'm sure he's laughing so hard he's crying right now. What the fuck.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not 100% convinced that Israel wanted this particular approach, although my only evidence is that neocons have been sending mixed signals.
It could just be that they're still in "Get Trump" mode, but maybe they wanted Trump to do something else than what he actually did?
Does anyone have any interesting articles which point the finger somewhere else? The Gulf states, maybe?
More options
Context Copy link
We know he likes bottoming for fit male escorts. One of them blabbed to the media about how in D.C. all the male escorts know him and call him "Lady G". That actually makes him immune to blackmail since there are already first hand published accounts of what his asshole looks like when getting prepped for anal. He likes hot guys and the Israelis can't hold that over him.
Now that homosexuality itself isn't blackmail material I guess the sheer promiscuousness of the average partaker and lack of spontaneous extramarital offspring makes it quite hard to blackmail
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
United States Constitution, Article III, section 3, paragraph 2:
They had experience with governments punishing the relatives of traitors and wanted no part of it.
If you told the founders that we were entering a needless war of foreign intervention 6000 miles away in Persia, they would consider their constitution a failure, and may be partial to my helpful revision.
"From the Halls of Montezu-uma,
to the shores of Tripoli,
but not twenty-five percent fa-arther,
cause that'd just be crazy!"
Seems like it ruins the original's meter and spirit.
Maybe focus on "needless"; don't throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.
Tripoli and Mexico were not interventions into foreign affairs as they secured the wellbeing of Americans exclusively. The lyrics are “we fight our country's battles […] to keep our honor clean”. Not, “we fight Israel’s battles and lose all our honor by killing 100 children in the first salvo, while also killing a Muslim leader in their holy month backhandedly while lying about negotiations, all while harming our own interests among Arab allies in the region”. Our plan going into Tripoli was to secure a deal to benefit Americans, not trying to kill everyone in the government and military and hoping for the best. Leave such dishonor to Israel. In any case this is a 1930s authorization, not really traditional enough for me.
That ship sailed, and was turned away, in 1939. Unitedstatesian acts in defence of Israel can be justified many ways, but one of them is to restore that honour.
(Also, Iran supported the Houthis, and the Houthis touched our boats.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also if the place was still called "Persia", we likely wouldn't be having this issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is not NLP mind control, this is how military decisions should be made. You may object that Trump is just too stupid to assess military intelligence - okay great, thanks for you input. Or you can object that the intel was bad - obviously a baseless objection, but if you think Israel is secretly evil then I see where you're coming from. But to object to the President making a military decision based on military intelligence is completely asinine.
You failed to read. This part is NLP:
The part you selected is only Trump being lied to, as our own intelligence does not agree with what Netanyahu said, and Israel has previously lied to get us into war. A fool would trust their intel without vetting.
Its not American military intel, its whatever Netanyahu said.
IMO the fault really lies in the American populace for weighting the specific political agenda of candidates higher than an assessment of their character, personal judgement, and trustworthiness. And here, Trump specifically for being an easily convinced idiot. But "congressmen can't visit foreign countries and bring back advice for the president" has literally never been forbidden, and it would be silly to do so, and impossible to draw a rational line about what kind of advice/exactly which countries/etc.
Edit: of course, if you just want to badmouth and shame Graham for doing this, have at it and I encourage it, that's fine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump has been talking about fucking up Iran since the days of the Embassy Hostage Crisis, and there are multiple people in his cabinet (Vance and Hegseth foremost among them) who have a personal beef with the IRGC.
I know a bunch of veterans who were stationed on the Iraq/Iran border during the Second US/Iraq War and they have told me stories about both the IRGC and the absolutely asinine policies of the Obama administration in regards to them. Stories about receiving instructions not to interfere with IRGC death-squads operating in their AO because acknowledging their presence or worse yet, US troops "accidentally" shooting an Iranian citizen (even if that Iranian had shot at US troops or Iraqi citizens first) might negatively impact JCPOA negotiations.
I also find your characterization of Trump as some sort of senescent meat-puppet especially rich given who he replaced.
Both Trump and Vance explicitly ran as anti-war-with-Iran.
More options
Context Copy link
If Trump had ran on war with Iran he would have lost. He ran on the opposite as the "peace" candidate.
He ran on "Make America Great Again" and part of being "great" is people heed your warnings. As I said in one of the earlier threads on the topic Trump is not Obama, when he sets a "red-line" he means it.
And when he didn't mean it after all, then it wasn't a real red line to begin with, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why does responsibility not lie with Trump / Hegseth etc here, or even Americans who voted for someone allegedly so easily manipulated? It’s very much “the Tsar’s advisors are the real problem”.
The best salesmen in the world are working right now to sell you Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Fanduel, Kalshi, day trading, laundry detergent, whatever. That doesn’t mean one can’t criticize the lifestyle decisions of gluttons, gamblers and spendthrifts.
The best salesmen in the world are at the intelligence agencies because they have access to psychological research that has never been published, and because such a job is more rewarding than working at Coca Cola. McDonald’s does not have a team focused specifically on targetting you, as an individual, using all your data, with access to your friend while you’re in a golf-induced trance state. If they did then you would prostrate before the Big Arch and salivate upon hearing “I’m lovin’ it”.
More options
Context Copy link
Well yeah, we do blame Trump, or at least I do. But that's an even worse problem, because it proves that these loyalties to Israel have to be rooted out of our government on both the D and R side, it's not a matter of just "find someone with higher agency who can balance these concerns more responsibly". I'm never supporting a candidate who vocally supports Israel, ever again. Compromise is impossible- "Trump is based but he supports Israel, we'll support him in hopes he gives use the change we want without compromising the very existence of our Empire on behalf of the Jews." Didn't work. The Right-Wing Zionist/Brown Alliance the BAP sphere insists upon in opposition to "peasant antisemitism" is impossible. It's not just about the advisors, it's about the politicians themselves. Supporting Israel should make you unelectable in both parties, it's the only solution. Newsom is pivoting hard in that direction, reading the writing on the wall. Woke shit sucks, but it's not nearly as dangerous as this fifth column, and demonstrated loyalty to that fifth column even if it's bundled with based rhetoric should be a disqualifier whether you are left-wing or right-wing.
So I agree with you, I can criticize the lifestyle of people who indulge while at the same time resolve that nobody in bed with those salesmen should have power anywhere in America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link