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 -
It is actually stupider and more evil than just "weaksauce cowardliness". The democrats all want war with Iran because they're compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex, and war with Iran serves both of those interests (or at least those interests seem to think that - who knows what will happen in the end). On the other hand, they know that their base absolutely despises the war with Iran and will refuse to vote for people who support it. That's why they're simply doing nothing and pretending that their hands are tied - because it allows them to get what they want (incredibly expensive bombs paid for by the US taxpayer blowing up schoolchildren who are in the way of Greater Israel) without having to damage their electoral support by actively supporting it.
I actually thought a little deeper about my "weaksauce cowardliness" verbiage and I feel maybe my anger is unjustified. Honestly, this is what the American people want. Americans like it that the executive can make unilateral military action. If the American people cared, they would have elected people that cares. At this point the power to "declare war" is just writing on a piece of document. In China, they say "Rules are dead, people are alive", maybe what we need is just an update of the rules instead of this charade of calling it "military operation" instead of a "war".
With regards to Dem's behaviors as you described, I suppose that can be considered good politiks or as you say "stupider and more evil". I don't believe "democrats all want war", I think they both don't want war and know how good it is that the Republicans are pushing on anyway. Even now, I'm not sure what to expect from the Democrats to do, it's not like they can shut down the government even harder. Then again, I'm not a legislative aide or some kind of Washington insider who knows the levers of power.
Anyway, this is what American people voted for, isn't this the best way for a people to learn?
They quite literally elected a man who said "no new wars" all the time
They elected a man who said “no new wars,” yes. But they also elected a man with an obvious trail and history of lies that is much greater (relatively) than the normal politician. So Trump's election is not evidence that the public wanted war. It is evidence that a large part of the public was willing to trust, excuse, or ignore dishonesty when it came packaged with promises they liked. So my quibble is with what the American people cared about. They cared about the lies, they didn't care about the credibility of the liar.
PS: Liars with good credibility are what we call innovators and pioneers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you disagree with the more general legislative branch framing to specifically call out the democrats as evil? I imagine the "compromised by Israel and the military-industrial complex" descriptor fits the political class in America in general, rather than just the Democrats. Hell, if we had to choose which side is more apt for the descriptor, I'd have chosen the Republicans. Furthermore, I thought the Republican base was supposed to be the ones who despise war with Iran more, as evidenced by the countless media campaigns and memes I've seen during the 2024 election season about Kamala wishing to start a war with Iran if elected, and the no-war president Donald Trump. So if any side is more duplicitous, I'd also say it's the Republicans. And let's not forget that they currently control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the presidency. Yet somehow the continuation of the Iran war is more evidence that the democrats are the dishonest evildoers.
No, I don't disagree with this - the entire legislative branch IS corrupt and compromised (except maybe a few small outliers). The reason I called out the democrats specifically is that they are ostensibly the opposition party and are meant to put a stop to wars like this.
The republicans have betrayed their base to an immense degree, and that base agrees - the MAGA coalition has just about disintegrated at this point. The magnitude of their betrayal is probably larger than that of the democrats, but I'm sure in the alternate reality where the DNC won they would be betraying their base just as hard.
I actually did have an article which made the claim that the democrats know that their base hates the war but they want to support it anyway, but as far as I can tell that article is now paywalled and I can't find it anymore. But yes, it is evidence that the democrats are dishonest evildoers - just not THE dishonest evildoers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's more that they're worried that one of two things will happen:
-- The Special Military Operation will work, and they'll look like naysayers
-- Iran will do something so horrible that you don't want to look like you were defending them
I mean if the IRGC sets off a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv, that actually makes the war a worse idea than when it was started, but it makes anything that sounds like sympathy for Iran look bad.
I based my claim on an article which is now paywalled and hence unable to be used as a source which claimed these were the actual motivations in question. But that said...
I highly doubt this will happen.
Yea, just imagine how awful it would be if they did something terrible like blow up a school full of young girls or destroyed a major petroleum stockpile in a populated residential area, causing immense ecological damage and health consequences for people forced to breathe in black rain! Who could possibly defend monsters that would commit such atrocities?
Speak for yourself - Tel Aviv getting blown up is one of the few positives to emerge from this conflict in my view.
I mean me too but I do think it entered the head of the average Democratic senator that he didn't want to be on the wrong side of this, especially when people are holding up Venezuela as some kind of massive success story.
It's different when we do it. Hell, even just Iran causing mass military casualties will qualify. Say, by sinking an aircraft carrier, or destroying a landing craft full of marines on live video feed. Enough flag draped coffins will lead to calls for revenge and redoubling, "finish the job so my child didn't die in vain" as Pete Hegseth claims a parent told him but the parents that could be reached for comment deny.
Congresscritters are cowards with their fingers in the wind, not principled anti-war activists.
This war is too unpopular for a large casualty event to lead to doubling down and calls for revenge to work. It's far more likely that a large casualty event ends the political will to continue the war at all.
The warstate and other scumbags will definitely try to double down and call for revenge, but it's been a long time since foreign wars killing American solders were responded to by the average American with revenge. Instead they've been responded to with a question, "Why the hell are we still there?"
And I think the Trump Admin and the war state thinks this too which is why they've been so casualty averse so far. But the current thing isn't working, it's leading to catastrophe, and time is running out to avoid worldwide economic crisis, so they will probably take another step up the risk ladder.
I continue to be skeptical of the thesis that has no balls and will give up if harmed. The Ukraine war has made me permanently skeptical of the idea, which seemed like the perfect example of a population of a fake country with a corrupt government that nonetheless is willing to go to the mattresses.
Ukrainians think their war is existential
Americans do not think a war most of them cannot point to on a map on the other side of the world is existential
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