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 mean, Iran did take over the US Embassy and hold Americans hostage November 4, 1979, right before the Iraq-Iran war which kicked off in 1980. It seems like there is evidence the current Iranian Regime considered the US their enemy before the Iraq-Iran war, and also perhaps some US participation in the Iraq-Iran war wasn't just shits and giggles but a response to actual grievances, such as 52 active hostages.
And this also happened decades ago, almost half a century ago, so either we're going back blow by blow or we aren't. At some point nations have to look at the world as it is now and make decisions based on what they think is best for the future, not past grievances. Iran was choosing a future where they have nuclear weapons that can reach Europe and the Continental US and a future where they are destabilizing their neighbors, arming terrorists and harming international shipping. And the US is trying to choose a future where Iran doesn't get to do those things. War is not the criminal justice system. Guilt does not need to be proven. It's divorce court and someone's going to get the kids and the house and the other is going to pay child support.
Even ignoring that the hostage crisis was because the US protected the Shah (whom they imposed on Iran) when Iranians wanted him tried, the idea that 52 hostages means that you can fund 50,000 Iranian casualties from chemical attacks is insane. Why do pro-Israelis seem to have no notion of proportionality? US protects Shah from revolution -> 50 hostages -> US supports Iraq inflicting 50,000 casualties on Iran through chemical weapons even as Iran petitions the international community to compel them to stop. Like what are we even doing here. And Iraq invaded Iran! It wasn’t even a defensive use of chemical weapons.
If I wanted a country to never again take my citizens as hostages I would've killed even more. That's what wanting someone to never fuck with you and yours means. Not essays or vibes.
As long as you don't mind looking like an absolute psychopath, sure. I don't believe that within America, 'Hanson Jr. raped my daughter so I slaughtered every child at his school with an AK' is considered appropriate. The
HatsonsHatfields and the McCoys were jokes even in their own time, not role models.It sounds like you don't understand war or even the concept of violence. It's not about what we "look like" as if reality is parsed through the feminine consensus mechanism. This is war. You broke one of our most sacred taboos so now we are going to kill you. Anything beneath that is just playacting. And if you're not willing to go to kill* for what you believe in then you don't really believe in it.
* Or die. True pacifism is the other side of this coin.
Oh, please. Go and level North Korea if you're so worried about your taboos, followed by India, Israel and Pakistan. This is about 'we can and we felt like it and hey, it worked in Venezuela'. If it were actually a sacred do-or-die moment where the correct action was obvious, everybody would be on board.
The fact that America is increasingly willing to kill for a chocolate bar, with a significant contingent of Americans grinning and making finger-guns the whole way, is why the collective response of the rest of the world has been to treat you like a drunk who barged onto the subway with a gun on his hip muttering 'bang, bang' when he looks at people.
My comment about "taboos" was directed at the hostage crisis, which is one of the most egregious acts of terror ever committed against America and her people. The hostage crisis merits extreme violence, because a state that can not even respect embassies is already gone rogue. And if we respond with weakness that only invites more violence. That's what war is.
This bears no resemblance even remotely to anything under discussion. In 2026 America has toppled a violent narco state in Venezuela, bombed a rogue theocratic regime in Iran, and threatened the kleptocratic regime of Cuba. "Kill for a chocolate bar"? I really wonder what kind of news they print in Europe. If you can't even imagine American motivations as rational I do think this is analogous to TDS, because it's not hard actually to understand what America wants or why. The only incident I can think of that even vaguely resembles your remark is the Greenland incident, which as I argued in another post is (in part) a serious overreaction on the parts of the Europeans. We could argue about that too some more I suppose, but it really doesn't bode well if a priori America is to be treated as some kind of crazy cokehead cowboy psycho. (While the good rational Europeans are sending bombs to Greenlandic runways and cheering for Iran to keep the Straits of Hormuz closed.)
See what I mean? The fact that you disagree is treated as proof that you were right to disagree.
Then I mistook your meaning and I apologise. To be honest, I find the hostage crisis less compelling than the nuclear justification. It's a taboo so sacred, so utterly demanding of violence and death that America did nothing for 45 years except support Iraq, apply economic sanctions and blow up a couple of oil platforms? The weakness implied by turning a blind eye is so desperately dangerous that nothing similar has happened since that time?
I'm aware I'm slipping into sarcastic paraphrases and I apologise for that, especially since you argued in good faith in the other thread, but I just can't see this. It seems to me to be transparently self-serving justification that exists primarily because the Right/MAGA has a justified fear that if they show weakness then we will be back with the old regime of throwing conservatives to the wolves every time anyone gets performatively upset. I get that. I felt the same about Boris Johnson, especially when he was so obviously being targeted with smear campaigns over trivialities by scalp-hunters who loathed him. Nevertheless, he also had some fairly serious flaws. I hate to say it but even Keir Starmer is sort-of better (i.e. a hell of a lot stronger on immigration).
I regard myself as sane (he says wryly). Everyone including me broadly understood at the time why you (+ Britain) went to war after 9/11, because 9/11 was legitimately that awful. A hostage crisis that I doubt either of us are old enough to remember just doesn't seem on the same level to me. Not to mention that America's new habit of abducting or assassinating heads of state is considered pretty damn taboo in itself.
I get the lion's share of my info about America here. Some of it literally from you yourself. Everything that I have ever written about politics over the last five years is in my posting history on this very site - please look through and decide for yourself whether I am suffering from TDS. Like I said, I understand intimately why people on the right are inclined to roll their eyes at people wailing about Trump, and why they are so protective of him. I can only beg that you in turn consider that you are now dismissing serious worries from inside the tent (or at least adjacent to it) as TDS.
We did a lot against Iran in the intervening 45 years and Carter's weak response to the mullahs was considered disgraceful for generations. It was on TV constantly, Reagan's inauguration speech was played split-screen with video of the hostages boarding planes to come home. A huge part of the controversy over Obama's Iran deal was that it viscerally reminded many of that exact weakness.
Look I'm losing steam for this argument because I have other things to do today but I think you're a reasonable guy and I don't take any offense personally and I'm certainly not trying to insult you either. What I'm getting at in general, more or less, is that every time I talk to foreigners about America, especially Europeans, at some level they throw something up and fail to understand. (Actually I think Arabs and Asians tend to get it pretty well.)
But, from our point of view, it's the Europeans who are going crazy. This is debated within America and you'll find different perspectives but there has been total hostility to spending more on NATO, eliminating tariffs, Trump's warnings about Russian oil, Greenland, etc., even when what America is proposing is in Europe's best interests. Well, sure, America can be a loose cannon and hasn't always used its supremacy in the best ways (hence MAGA), but Europe beings to lose all right to criticize when they rely on us to defend them.
Because America doesn't care about Europe's criticisms at all. I'm reminded of Baudrillard's remark that he came to America hoping to get a different perspective on Europe -- and found that instead Europe vanished entirely. "I don't think about you at all etc."
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