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 either of these strictly a "blockade"? The Cuba embargo is strictly rules on US businesses in (most, but not all) industries doing business with Cuba. Other countries' ships and planes can and do go in and out there. The closest to a blockade proper was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's quite a long time ago now.
There were some seized ships going to Venezuela recently, but those were nominally illegally-flagged vessels ("shadow fleet") in international waters. I don't think correctly-flagged vessels saw any disruption.
Blockades aren't unheard of in hot warfare, though.
Cuba is facing essentially a full-country blackout from three months of US oil blockades...
If by oil blockade you mean 'no longer receiving it for free from Venezuela', then I suppose there is a global oil blockade on everyone. Cuba is the world's worst sovereign in paying back its debts: even North Korea has to play nice with China and Russia on occasion. It's like a bankrupt whining about a 'loan blockade' after defaulting on credit cards several times.
Cuba could very easily buy oil from Venezuela or Mexico. They just choose not to, because their government wants to pocket the American dollars for themselves.
I'm sorry, can we just cut the bullshit? The US kidnaps the leader of Venezuela and then forbids them from shipping oil to Cuba. Then it strongarms Mexico into stopping oil shipments to Cuba. No matter how you try to rationalize this, it is certainly not more normal than Iran's restrictions on the Strait.
Iran is fighting an asymmetric war for its survival. The only two possibilities were ever immediate surrender or blockading the Strait. Most likely the Friday timing of the attack on Iran was intended to wrap up the war before the markets even opened by Monday in the best case scenario. But I find it hard to tolerate people complaining about Iran acting in a way that's unprecedented or unpredictable, when it's neither of those things. If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.
All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that.
It took me a moment to find the article, but the Americans have no formal oil embargo on Cuba from Venezuela.
It's not a rationalization: it's an objective fact, and you are the one who is full of shit. You're a third worldist who is upset that a communist nation is not getting free gibs. The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence. Mexico can quite easily sell to Venezuela at below-market rates. Why don't they?
Is because, I don't know, they want to make money, and not give away gibs?
Well and the fact the world's hegemon makes "wouldn't it be a shame if someone kneecapped your economy with tariffs if you sold oil to Cuba" noises whenever someone (Mexico) considers selling oil to Cuba at market rates.
More options
Context Copy link
https://amp.dw.com/en/cuba-hit-by-island-wide-blackout-amid-trump-oil-blockade/a-76385816
There is no Venezuelan oil going to Cuba; Mexico is being threatened with tariffs for sending oil to Cuba; Cuba has not received any oil in three months. The article you’re posting is talking about a hypothetical deal to be reached in the future with Cuba. No such deal has been enacted.
None of those things amount to a blockade, though. If any country really wanted to send oil to Cuba, they can do so.
And risk US sanctions and tariffs? Not very likely.
Weird, it's almost like the US govt is using its array of hard and soft power to stop oil from arriving in Cuba. If only there was a word for that...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Iran doesn't have a formal oil embargo on the Strait either! You can cross, good luck getting insured, might want to reconsider it unless you pay IRGC $2 mil. But no formal oil embargo, for all that's worth.
The two situations could not be more different. Iran is a bridge troll while Cuba is an welfare case.
Since you've slipped my Cuba argument, I'm going to assume that you've conceded the point.
I'm just curious, do you admit the US government is consciously straining the Cuban oil supply in order to put political pressure on their regime? Or do you seriously think it's about curbing welfare fraud?
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