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 agree that knocking out regional oil infrastructure would, at least temporarily, worsen the quality of life of the world generally, but that doesn't "risk the world."
The Iraqis set fire to Kuwait's oil fields, and on a quick Google it looks like the damage was repaired in about 2 years. It seems unlikely that Iran will be able to hit Saudi oil infrastructure both horizontally and vertically (causing long term damage to all Saudi oil infrastructure) so they would focus on chokepoints like refineries and export terminals that would be expensive and difficult to repair or replace.
In your scenario we're basically looking at, potentially, severe but imperfect risk to about 30% of the world's production, which can be at least partially mitigated in the short term by reserves, in the medium term by repairs and production elsewhere, and over the long term by repairs and new construction. It's not going to end the world.
Is this a good reason not to attack Iran? It's definitely worth throwing into the hopper. Is it "risking the world"? Nah.
If Iran could somehow snap its fingers and delete oil production for the Middle East, it would plausibly strengthen the United States (as a massive oil producer with huge reserves) over the medium-long term.
More options
Context Copy link