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 -
Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced today he was resigning over the war in Iran.
What's most significant is that Kent is not a Marjorie Taylor-Green or a Thomas Massie. Kent served in the U.S Special Forces and in eleven combat tours, mostly Iraq, and then retired an became a paramilitary officer with the CIA. His wife was killed in Syria. Kent had a very public feud with the Nick Fuentes faction of America First which was started by Kent's public denunciation of Fuentes.
Kent was clearly amenable to an aspirational "middle ground" with respect to the tenuous America First/Israel Alliance, which is why he was targeted by the Groypers in the first place. Nobody can accuse him of hiding some deep-seeded Jew hatred because of his long and recent history of supporting Israel, this seems to be a genuine defection. This defection is highly significant and the first time a high-ranking official has described any of these conflicts in these terms.
There may be more shoes to drop/more resignations. My own criticism of Kent's resignation is that he tries to absolve Trump of blame, when Trump is neck-deep in all of this.
This resignation comes as the same day the Guardian reports that a UK security adviser present at US-Iran talks believed a deal was within reach immediately before the US/Israeli strikes on Iran.
Does anyone have a place where people in favor of this war are discussing it? I’m struggling to find anybody who genuinely thinks it’s a good idea.
I mean support is still reasonably broad. I saw stats suggesting somewhere in the range of 80-85 percent of Republicans are down.
Most of the internet continues to have an anti-Trump/Republican bias that doesn't change. So you'd expect to have trouble with pro-war discourse.
Witch havens like here are stuffed with people with deeply unconventionally views (die hard anti-intervention folks and anti-jew posters for one) and are not representative of the general Republican field.
I'm personally for the war and found the experience supporting it here to be not very rewarding, I imagine plenty of others have similar thoughts.
I for one would be quite interested in why you support the war. The information environment is bad right now, so I value getting perspectives which disagree from my own that I am quite confident aren't from a bot.
There are several justifications for this war that strike me as plausible, but I have no idea which ones (if any) are load-bearing among supporters e.g.
Are any of these close?
Yes some combination of those, to expand on a few reasons to go about this (not that I believe in all of them):
-The expression of the power of the United States has been inappropriately curtailed for too long, the most straightforward example of this is the Russian invasion of Ukraine which likely only happened because of the Biden administrations weakness. Showing off reaffirms the U.S.'s superpower status and likely prevents all kinds of bad outcomes. China's fans like to make claims but realistically every military in the world is shitting their pants looking at this and Venezuela. Later losing for political reasons will not change this. The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity.
-Israel can probably be considered something of an albatross but it is a key ally, and was one when we needed it. We shouldn't abandon them. Additionally coordinating with Israel and the other countries in the area is more or less bringing everyone in the region into the U.S.'s sphere of influence. Unclear if this will be durable once Iran and proxies are gone, but it is a thing, and the world is probably better off if we transform the religious regimes into klepto-authoritarian ones. This also is a boon against China, as Venezuela was.
-Oil (long term stability, not short term obviously).
-Morals. The death of the protestors and general oppression is not good. Anyone who thinks they would stop the Nazis but isn't stopping Iran needs to be asking themselves hard questions. And - while it is deeply tied to his ego (b/c ignoring threats), people who know Trump will seriously and probably correctly point out that killing the protestors made him mad and is a big part of what made him pull the trigger. Lots of people treat Trump like a character and not an actual person, but he has been consistent in this, and he is of a generation that that was deeply impacted by the hostage crisis.
-We've been (essentially) at war with Iran for decades, to some extent increasingly. Asymmetric options like terrorism, cyberattacks, drones are only going to be increasing in danger. The country has threatened to kill our president. People with intelligence backgrounds I know have frequently emphasized Iran as one of the biggest threats, and people who played in the sandbox have a lot of problems with them. You don't let someone keep punching you indefinitely, especially if they are probing for the right spot for David to kill Goliath.
-Nukes. Absolutely fucking not. Regardless of how close they were in reality their response to being attacked makes it pretty clear that Iran actually getting nuclear weapons would represent an existential threat to global stability. People emphasize closeness but that isn't the right question, when can we actually stop them is the right question, how close is just political justification.
-Speaking of when is the right time, it's pretty likely now. The regime is going through a lot of political and economic turmoil and waiting might have panned out, but if they survive the clearly increasing missile and drone capacity pretty readily substitutes for Nukes in a MAD scenario (at least for the global economy). If our intervention ends out being bad, then that's evidence waiting while they get stronger would have been even worse.
Importantly how real the threat of the last two is is not going to be something people will actually be able to know unless a credible leak happens, and likely only in the affirmative.
Ultimately this is pretty likely to be a "bad idea" in the sense it is going to be a shit show, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary to do the hard thing.
In the nicest possible way, a lot of these justifications seem deeply hypocritical and self-serving.
I am glad to be told this by my benevolent overlord.
America, unlike Iran, famously never uses its dominance of key global markets to get its way /s
You have killed their president! And let us not forget that America created the Taliban, supports Kurdish rebels, and almost certainly aids and abets Mossad campaigns of sabotage and assassination in Iran. There is no possible way that America can present itself as a principled objector to asymmetric warfare.
It's weird how unstable American global stability feels. More to the point, this is precisely the kind of behaviour that spurs people to make nukes. It's now absolutely undeniable that any country who doesn't wish their cities razed and their leaders black-bagged when America feels like it, needs nukes that aren't controlled by America. Even the UK Labour party now supports getting a new nuclear deterrent that's not American-controlled. These people were unilateral abolitionists 5 years ago! America eying European and Canadian territory and licking their lips doesn't help even slightly.
'If this goes badly, that makes it even more important to do it!' That's a Kafka trap.
The moral argument I give you, but taking that seriously seems to demand that:
These are talking points not fully fleshed out arguments, but I find the quality of discussion on this latest conflict to be far below what I usually see here.
Example: "Rubio said Israel dragged us into this war." No. Just no.
And as to this specific point, I should not need to write a full length essay in order for you to be able to connect the dots here. It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."
I understand that a lot of people are using this conflict to funnel anti-Trump, American, and Jew feelings, but a lot of people are actively cheering for America to lose and to support Iran, a country that is recently accused of killing tens of thousands of its own population and actively, joyfully supports global terrorism.
Likewise the U.S. isn't an amazing hegemon, but people cheering for China or Russia to take over? Jesus Christ.
Thing is, you are fundamentally a patriotic American at your core and you know in your heart that yours is the best country even if it's not perfect. As you should! Moderate patriotism is a virtue. But it means you cannot genuinely empathise with people like me who are looking at the behaviour of America and Americans right now and getting really creeped out.
My history of posts on this site is available for you to make up your own mind, but 10 years ago I would have classed myself as definitely pro-American. The Americans weren't always perfect, there was Iraq, they had the usual imperial tendency to have difficulty distinguishing their personal interests from the interests of the world, but they did their best and there were much worse people out there.
I got rather more dubious about America's social and economic dominance once wokeness and especially BLM came in: race relations in the UK were never perfect but I didn't like watching them become a carbon-copy of America's, right up to and including the 'hands up, don't shoot' slogan when police in the UK don't have guns. Trump and the American Right were fighting hard though, and things did indeed turn the corner, and I was very pleased to see it. Again, please read my posting history.
I went off Israel in a big way after Oct 7 when the biggest contingent of pro-Israelis on this site started just outright saying, 'look, it's time to exterminate the Palestinians now'. I don't want to huff and puff on the internet, and I don't like the Palestinians or Hamas either, but I was genuinely shocked at the number of people who seemed to be A-OK with campaigns of racial extermination as long as it was their guys doing the exterminating.
Likewise, a few months ago, when Trump suddenly decided that he wanted Greenland, the sovereign territory of an ally and perhaps the least woke country in Western Europe, I was horrified to see a big contingent of Americans on this site with massive grins on their faces saying, "Yeah! Fuck those smug Europeans! Sorry boys, if you didn't want us to stomp on your balls you should have grown some bigger ones!" Even from posters I respect, often the response was essentially, "Look, you've been weak and disrespectful, and if my party wants to stomp on your balls then you basically deserve it."
Ultimately your post seems to me to be saying that America deserves to subjugate the world forever, and if anyone decides they don't like it or they'd at least like to try being stamped on by a different boot, then that makes them an enemy and a threat to oh-so-benevolent American hegemony which needs to be dealt with. "The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity," you say happily. Have you asked the world? In general, I think your position contains a serious Kafka trap where any serious attempt to defy American authority or defend against American hostility (like preparing nuclear weapons that could actually defend against an American attack, or seeking good relations with other powerful nations, or engaging in proxy economic or military activity, the last of which I do not endorse) is automatic proof of guilt indicating the need to subjugate or raze. Strong 'if you didn't resist, I wouldn't have to hurt you' vibes.
I feel confident saying that America could and would black-bag my democratically-elected
pratPrime Minister if they felt like it and the response from the aforementioned contingent would be the same as it was to Gaza, Denmark and Iran. They, and the US government, seem to feel that the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't that they killed vast numbers of innocent people and turned whole nations into warlord-infested torture deserts for nothing, but that America was mildly inconvenienced while doing so.TLDR: Apologies for being a little heated. I think our positions and priors are too different for us to viscerally appreciate each others' positions, but
please consider what it might say about America's recent behaviour if it causes sensible people feel even an ounce of warmth towards Iran (whose government is as awful as you say). Likewise, that the People's Republic of China is looking sensible and level-headed. I hope that this is America's 'wolf warrior' moment and the bloodlust will recede and America will realise that other people's opinions matter at least a little bit and retrench, but I'm not confident.
This situation is a bit more nuanced than that, I think. Indulge me, for just a second, if you would.
I'm not going to argue that Trump's rhetoric on this has been good (in fact, possibly it's been counterproductive) in part because fact-checking everything he's ever said would be extremely tedious, but I am given to understand that he ruled out actually attacking and seizing Greenland at some point. Great. But it seems pretty clear to me that he didn't wake up one morning and decide "ooh I want Greenland" for no reason.
The truth is that the US has wanted to acquire Greenland for a long time (the US has kicked the idea around since the mid-1800s). During World War 2, the US actually invaded Greenland, actually took control of the island, and then when Denmark asked the United States to leave after the war was over, we refused, the US being, apparently, convinced that Greenland was important to its security heading into the Cold War. The way NATO fell together smoothed things over, and the US continued to maintain bases there (although it still kicked around the idea of purchasing the island).
So we found a tenable status quo that rested on cooperation. What could have changed since the Cold War to make the US interested in owning Greenland again?
The answer is that in 2008 Greenland held a referendum on self-governance, which Denmark agreed to honor. A 2009 law guaranteed Greenland the right to leave altogether, if they so chose, and in fact that's the direction Greenland is currently headed in.
Now, personally, I agree with this course of action by Denmark, as I am generally for lower levels of self-governance. (Also, Denmark seems to have treated the natives pretty badly, apparently running an illegal and unethical contraception campaign until fairly recently with the goal of reducing their population.)
But geopolitically if there's any chance that Greenland actually leaves Denmark, it throws into question the currently existing security arrangement! Imagine if Poland agreed to let Suwalki hold an independence referendum: maybe this is a good thing on principle, but the Baltic states would go nuts and understandably so. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a "jerk move" necessarily but if access to Greenland is actually important for US/NATO security and Greenland wants to leave Denmark, it's pretty sensible for the US to want to acquire Greenland.
I think the best solution here for all parties is probably a Compact of Free Association between Greenland and the United States, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made that less likely, I am inclined to think it is bad, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made it more likely, maybe it's actually good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link