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 -
Nothing will create a global multilateral coalition faster than Iran indiscriminately making the strait of Hormuz impassible. You might as well declare war on the entirety of the modern economy. No, the world won't go along with a global depression just to spite the Americans and Israelis. Not even China. Not even Russia. Iran is diplomatically isolated in formal and informal terms and no one is joining them in their last, suicidal gambit. And if all of those intellectuals you've linked don't recognize the fact they're stupid - and wrong.
Given a multinational coalition doesn't appear to be forming, Trump asked them and they all said no, and given that the squeeze in Hormuz got Trump to ask for a ceasefire, is it really so stupid? The Iranians calling the shots have a lot more at stake than the US and Israel. If they play this wrong their dead and as of now their government is in an existential state of total war it's the best chance they have. If they make peace without showing they can hurt the US they are dead men walking so why not do the gambit. It's their best shot at not dying from an Israeli airstrike.
More options
Context Copy link
The Russian government benefits from high oil prices and has already committed itself for several years now to withstanding economic difficulties in service of a geopolitical objective. I think they're fine with the Strait of Hormuz being completely closed. I suppose the Chinese government might pull some strings with the Russian one to get them to change their minds, but I wouldn't count on it. The Chinese must be getting a lot of schadenfreude from watching their geopolitical opponents seethe over the Strait, especially given that those opponents would rush to try to cut China off from its naval access to overseas oil if a conflict broke out.
More options
Context Copy link
The only problem with this logic is that Iran didn’t close the Strait arbitrarily on a whim. There are two primary culprits driving this policy. And ironically, China and Russia can’t afford to let Iran fall because of their own entangled geostrategic interests, in particular with China. International conditions that have shaped up thus far don’t seem to me at all to support the direction your comment makes. People seem to be eyeing other actors as the ones responsible.
I know that the UN is something of a meme in terms of policy, but as signaling in international relations you can't get much higher then that. Take a look for yourself.
https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16315.doc.htm
I'm not convinced that China or Russia are invested in Iran at all, if they won't even veto on a meaningless condemnation from the GCC toward Iran. Outside of the usual poke-in-the-eye espionage games against America, have Russia or China committed to any military or civilian aid to the Islamic Republic? What are these 'international conditions' you're vaguely posting about?
Who is Iran's great power backer?
Russia had supposedly been shipping (Iranian-design) drones to Iran, at least before Israel sank their (Iran's) Caspian Sea fleet.
More options
Context Copy link
You’re definitely right that I don’t take the UN seriously as a policy conductor, so I’m not going to put much weight behind that. They’re about as credible as the ICC’s arrest warrants.
I don’t think that Russia will sacrifice their aims in Ukraine to help Iran, nor do I think China will sacrifice its designs on Taiwan for Iran, but the commitments are real and they are there. Especially when you consider the energy relationship between Iran and China. Maybe Russia can supply some of that gap, but nobody really knows.
What makes you think Iran needs some major power backer at present? They’re doing quite well in this conflict on their own as I already pointed out. The real question is what cards does the US have to play that’ll turn the tide in their favor? It’s not like they abide by the UN charter at all. When you’re the world’s only superpower, you don’t have to because hypocrisy runs the show.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You would think. But they did, and the global response was "fuck you, US, for doing this". Then Europe backed off a little and sent a strongly worded statement asking the strait to be reopened and nothing more.
I doubt anyone seriously expected the Europeans to do anything. But indifference from the international community to the Iranian war is good enough. If China and Russian can't even be bothered to veto the Security Council resolution against them, the Europeans tut-tut, and the GCC is on side - it's just letting the Israelis and Americans do the dirty work.
If the GCC acted at all like the Europeans, the Iranian strategy of "if we're attacked, we'll shoot at anyone we can reach" probably would have worked a lot better. The Gulf states would be expelling us, embargoing oil, cozying up to Iran, etc.
Russia of course is happy because less oil through the strait = more oil sales for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why would you think that, and why should the global response be anything else? I get the "American hyper-agency syndrome" argument when it comes to the war in Ukraine, but it wears a little thin when we're talking about easily predictable retaliation in a war you started.
I shoot at you. In retaliation, you throw a grenade into a crowd. I knew you had the grenade... who is responsible for the grenade damage?
In other words, yes, this is still American hyper-agency syndrome.
If I have to shoot through a crowd of people to defend myself…
If I yell “fire” in a crowded theater, the I’m responsible for the fallout the ensuing panic generates. Likewise if I shoot at someone who I know has to shoot through a crowd to defend himself, I’m responsible for my actions incurred as a result.
Aside from being a bad example in a horrific and now-overturned Supreme Court decision, the reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is bad is that the people who hear the cry do not have the time for deliberation of their next action. The cry convinces them that there is an emergency and they must act to leave immediately.
No such situation existed in Iran. The bombing of their facilities by the US did not cause an emergency for which the reflexive action was to send missiles and drones at uninvolved countries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are. You provoked a psycho (threatened his life, really) who in turn became hyper aggressive. The psycho is also responsible, but you absolutely carry part of the blame. This was a predictable result of your actions, and you did nothing to mitigate the harm you knew (or should have known) would occur.
Your position denies agency to the "psycho", and in doing so makes hostage-taking a perfectly reasonable strategy.
If you hadn't stopped reading after the first sentence, you'd find that he did no such thing.
More options
Context Copy link
No. Both have agency. And the bystanders are correct to blame both the instigator and the culprit.
If you blame both, you are excusing the culprit while maintaining a fig-leaf of not doing so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you shoot at me from far outside my reach, and the only people I can reach to hit back are some of your friends who happen to be very economically important to you, then yeah, you're the one responsible for your friends getting hit. Your crying about them being attacked is roughly equivalent to hypothetical Iranian crying that you parked your forces out of range, or are using stealth tech.
Indeed. If you’re someone who’s upholding aggressive and hostile behavior of a party you’re on good terms with, then I believe we call that one “aiding and abetting.” You’re a legitimate target. It’s like a manipulative mother holding her baby in her arms at the same time she’s physically abusing her husband and egging him on to fight back. And then when he tries to defend himself, guess who’s the abuser trying to play the victim?
More options
Context Copy link
It is worth pointing out that in case the "friends" are also holding the gun, helping you reload the gun and hosting a bunch of your employees who help aim and fire the gun.
No, they were not. That's kinda the point; Iran fired at those who were and those who were not.
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