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 -
Where does my analysis rely on what Iran is saying? I'm concerned about what my country is saying. I'm not making any claims based on missile stocks or whatever, I'm looking at what Donald Trump is saying live every day. He's saying the war is won, but at first the war was won and the regime was going to collapse, then there was a period where the war was won and the Iranians would "unconditionally surrender." Then the Iranians were going to give up on the strait out of fear of bombing attacks on infrastructure. Now we've arrived at, the Iranians are going to open the strait of hormuz in exchange for all sanctions being dropped.
Next you'll tell me that Trump just says shit and it doesn't matter keep your eye on the prize kid, the marines are on their way and it's all the prelude to the invasion that will go perfectly and end the whole thing! And maybe, but that doesn't really make me feel very good either. Because I don't really like being part of a country where the government just says shit it doesn't mean.
That's your second mistake.
Oh, I hate it. But it's the hand that's been dealt. No good trying to behave as if the cards are different than what they are.
I'll disagree with this part. The implication seems to be that the Trump admin is uniquely bad in this way (are we forgetting Hillary Clinton's public and private positions?)
But I don't even think this is bad. Why in God's name would our politicians tell us what's actually going on in Iran, while it's happening? You know there's a war on right? One of the primary tools of both the military and the state department is deception, or at the very least strategic ambiguity. If Trump came out and told us his actual specific war aims, the biggest beneficiary would be Iran, who could adjust their own strategy to better defeat us. It's obviously in the best interest of our country to dissemble or outright lie about our goals.
I suspect the objection you would make is that 'the American people shouldn't be lied to'. Okay, why? We're a representative democracy, where we elect particular people to positions of power because we think they will be best suited to wield that power. We hold elections on a regular schedule, where we assess the individuals and their records, but during their tenure in that position (short of impeachment) they can act with impunity. This is by design!
So my question to you is: what exactly would you do differently if Trump was clear and open about his war aims? I would wager 99.9% of those complaining online a) have no potential way to influence events and b) are not really affected by these events either way, outside of gas prices. Of those who are actually involved, they almost certainly have a much clearer picture of what's going on and why. For the rest of us, this is just geopolitical theater, and we should not sacrifice strategic advantage so that you feel better about it.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this works well enough as a response from me, so thank you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link