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 problem is that America is a democratic republic. A section of Trump's vote was won on no more war/America first, or at least a leader that represented their interests in no war.
Now it appears as if the vast unaccountable artifice that wants war is actually more capable of setting foreign policy than the leader. This signals that the leader is useless at representing the people's interests.
If they want popular support for the war, the war needs to be successfully sold to the public, with reasons given for why the war is in America's best interest. If this is not done, the public will come up with their own explanations.
They didn't supply a good, or even bad reason. They didn't give a reason at all. I'm sure someone could come up with great explanations for why this was necessary, and a nuclear armed Iran doesn't seem great. But the incoherent noises from the government when asked to explain their situation do not inspire confidence.
There is a conspiracy theory that this is all a test, like a ratchet, to see how much people are willing to accept from their leaders. The hypernormalization of involvement in conflict, without a perceivable reason. There is another conspiracy theory that this is being done to distract from the frustration around the Epstein files, or the slightly related one that Mossad has significant kompromat on key American politicians related to Epstein and is using it as a lever to get them to assist with their war effort. There is another conspiracy theory that the evangelical wing of American politics has struck a deal with the Zionists to usher in the fucking apocalypse.
After Covid, I can no longer discount even the wildest of conspiracy theories as entirely without merit.
Trump was the one who decided to do this, not some faceless artifice you can conveniently point to. He’s been very publicly suffering from some sort of war mania for quite some time now.
I’m sure some deeper figures in the war and Israel lobby apparatus talked him up a great game of how easy and great it was going to be. But the one who has been obviously giddy about blowing things up in foreign lands is the guy at the top as well as all of his top advisors.
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you describe it like Trump was simply absent when all this was decided? Trump didn't simply fail to stop them, he is on board with it.
The people who wanted no war voted for a guy who constantly flip-flops, and this was a completely foreseeable outcome of that.
More options
Context Copy link
It might not be an intentional test, but there is definitely a test going on for just how much the so called "conservatives" have sold their soul into a cult of personality. I always assumed in 1984 when they said "we've always been at war with Eurasia", the government would have at least taken down all the "we are not at war with Eurasia" propaganda first.
But the point about loyalty tests is the absurdity. The more you're willing to show blatant disregard for basic reason in favor of bootlicking, the more trustworthy you seem.
The evangelical right has been very open about this for decades. It's not a conspiracy theory when they literally say it is their motivation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link