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 think you’ve given the game away. When it is convenient to argue that toppling Iran promotes American power, you put on that argument, but you don’t have a response to someone pointing out that toppling Israel also promotes American power — perhaps even more than toppling Iran, in light of the subversive influence of Israel on American decision-making. You resort to calling negative things about the Israeli regime “conspiracies”, including what our own head of terror-related intelligence says! Yet you apparently believe whatever a particular foreign Middle Eastern regime says about Iranian nukes. This does not read to me like loyalty. What loyal American trusts a Middle Eastern regime 5000 miles away over their own institutions and experts?
This is a kind of sophistry that really doesn’t merit much of a response because, among other issues:
It’s not true that the entire US intelligence apparatus is of one opinion on Iran and its nuclear aspirations (or that this conveniently backs your conspiracy)
Joe Kent making salacious accusations that Israel is behind everything is not credible
Trump has never shown himself to be dogwalked by these absurd plots and has been remarkably consistent on these issues across forty years
This isn’t a question of “loyalty” or whatever other fallacies you want to introduce. (Not that it’s even disloyal to believe Israeli intelligence reports — not that you’ve even shown this is in fact what has happened)
Your theory leaps over vast gulfs of supposition and proclaims them to be reasonable. Well I don’t believe that the Israelis have blackmail material of Donald Trump raping children, etc. etc., or that it takes a great mystery to explain why American foreign policymakers are opposed to Iran etc. etc.
Do you think we don’t have statements from the entire USIC apparatus?
From 2025:
And from 2026. As far as I can find, there is not even one single official dissention from the leadership of any of the 18 USIC agencies with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They are unanimous, “of one opinion”. Again, I’m somewhat puzzled at how a patriotic American can ignore the intelligence assessment of the most powerful nation in the world, to trust the assessment of… Israel. Perhaps the least trustworthy country. A country with a history of feeding presidents false intelligence on WMDs. A country which has the strongest motive to lie to us about Iran. A foreign country, speaking a foreign tongue, waving a different flag, 6000 miles away. (Now if you were distrusting the USIC because you figured they were too war-hungry, then that would be understandable, at least). Regarding Joe Kent: he is the one person in America who would know the most about this as he oversaw all American intelligence on foreign terror threats, which would include possible Iranian attacks and WMD acquisition. And before that, he was the chief of staff for the DNI, which is the intermediary between the WH and the IC. Hard to think of anyone more trustworthy than Joe Kent.
You were very confident that the USIC was not “of one opinion” on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Will you update your views now that you’re aware the USIC was in agreement? Do you have a reason for believing Israel over America or shall I assume the worst?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link