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 -
This is some kind of conjugated tense more subtle than even the most complicated of romance languages. What's the meaningful difference between "they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon [{now}]" and "they are trying to develop [{now}] the ability to develop a nuclear weapon [{in the future}]" -- ? I'm not asking this question now by the way I'm trying to ask this question in the future.
Sure it's a subtle distinction but it's important to determine the threat-level. An actual nuclear bomb is a technology that requires the integration of many components, highly enriched uranium being one of the most important for sure. You can say "the engine manufacturer is trying to build a car", eh not really it's trying to build an engine. If you extended the logic to "well the engine would only be used in a car so they are building the car" then that would extend to Iran's missile program as well.
Iran is a country with highly competent engineers, the US stratotanker was shot down yesterday (killing 6) by an in-house developed anti-air missile. The notion Iran has been trying but unable to engineer this 1940s technology is false, it has not been trying to build a nuclear bomb, and this is attested to by all the international agencies who have weighed in and no intelligence has been provided suggesting otherwise. I already described the reasoning Iran had for enriching the nuclear material.
Most likely the plan was for this highly enriched stockpile to form the basis for "imminent threat" to muddy the waters in exactly this way. "Their highly enriched stockpile means they are trying to build a nuclear bomb now", even if that's not actually true, at least muddies the water with respect to Iran's motives.
But Iran offered to hand over that highly-enriched material in an agreement with the US. My take is that this offer, demonstrating actual good-faith towards a likely agreement, was their death sentence as they got bombed immediately after making that major concession.
But now Witkoff and Kushner can't point to that highly enriched stockpile to say "Iran was trying to build a bomb." So the Witkoff narrative shifts to the controversy over the 20% enrichment for the TRR which doesn't even come close anymore to the notion that Iran was trying to build a nuclear bomb, and we had to bomb them in the middle of negotiations in order to stop them.
The truth is that Witkoff and Kushner were not hampered in those negotiations by a lack of expertise. They had access to the highest expertise in the world to achieve their objectives of the negotiation, and their objectives were war with Iran. The idea that Witkoff misunderstood the enrichment for TRR as being an imminent threat to build a nuke is not true at all. The progression of the negotiations weakened the narrative, so they pulled the plug and worked with what they had to get the US started in the war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link