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 -
Are the markets pricing the effects of this war correctly? As far as I understand it, the blockade (which seems to be in effect) of the strait of Hormuz is going to reduce the amount of oil in the market by about 20%, until either the war ends, or another pipeline workaround is found. This is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the world economy, especially for Asia, as there isn't a ready substitute. Even in the US, where we produce enough oil to cover domestic consumption, increased prices are going to hurt consumers and businesses significantly. It's not just oil: sulfuric acid for mining is made from Middle Eastern Crude, most of Europe's LNG comes from Qatar, and global air shipping routes are also going to become more costly. Even if we reach an agreement with Iran tomorrow (unlikely given the nature of the regime), the supply chain shock would be at least on the level of the Iraq War in 2003.
Yet the SP500 is only down 2% from January this year. Are investors not taking this war seriously, or is there really nowhere else to park money other than in US tech stocks?
I personally sold all my index funds and random stocks a few days ago and reinvested the money into US Oil Companies and 3-months CDs.
Right now prices are a bit high, but volatility (as measured by VIX and options prices) is super high, suggesting there's a huge range of ways this could go. Sound reasonable to me.
My main opinion is still that the US military is giving an absolute master class of dominance right now. They've recently destroyed everything on Kharg Island except the oil facilities, so that Iran can still sell its oil while limiting its ability to attack oil tankers. If this goes on much longer, Iran just isn't going to have anything left, and the strait will be open again. Then oil will crash back to where it was before, at historically relatively cheap prices.
Of course, it's also possible that this all blows up tomorrow. In that case oil shoots up again. Bad news for China, and anyone else who relies on imported oil. But everyone is scrambling to find workaround for that, too. Rationing, strategic oil reserves, the Saudis sending oil to the Red Sea, nonconventional oil increasing production, coal... there are options, even if it's painful in the short term.
I'm glad you brought up the Kharg Island thing, because it is the perfect example of showy tactical dominance that acomplishes zero strategic objectives.
All of the oil on Kharg Island is Iranian oil. The only purpose the garrison on Kharg serves is to protect the island's oil infrastructure. Drones from the mainland can still reach the Kuwaiti shipping lanes. The strategic situation before and after the airstrikes is... exactly the same.
Apparently Kharg island was one of the places Iran stored marine mines. Which would be sufficient reason to hit it.
Of course if the US intends to seize it, that would be another reason to hit it, but while that's what most people seem to think the US is going to do, I expect Qeshm and the nearby smaller islands would be a better prize.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link