site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26629 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Iran War is beginning to alarm even the neocons

Robert Kagan has a new article in the Atlantic blasting Trump for the Iran War. This is somewhat significant. Kagan is an arch-neocon who supported every previous war in the Middle East. He was a major proponent of the Iraq War, acting as the media arm of the Israel Lobby. The neocons of the 00s were the mostly-Jewish “decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq”, a pointless war that cost 3 trillion dollars, 35,000 American casualties including 4,500 dead, 200,000 direct civilian deaths by violence, and 1,000,000 excess civilian deaths in total, while indirectly leading ISIS to form among the disenfranchised and dispossessed former Ba’athist commanders (what did you think regime change consisted of?), a lapse in judgment which would cause the refugee crisis in Europe (with all the consequent rape and mayhem), the decimation of Iraqi and Syrian Christian communities, and myriad other human tragedies. It is important, I think, to continually remember how retarded that was; it is so recent, yet never sufficiently referenced in its full scope. (“Another Iraq”, yeah, but do you remember precisely how dumb that was?). Kagan’s criticism of the Iran War is interesting also because it retroactively informs us about the thinking behind the necon’s push for Iraq, given his prominence in that elite circle.

No state in the Middle East (including Iraq in 2003 and Iran today) ever posed a direct threat to the security of the American homeland. Iran has no missiles that can reach the United States and, according to American intelligence, would not until 2035. Access to Middle Eastern oil and gas has never been essential to the security of the American homeland. Today the United States is less dependent on Middle Eastern energy than in the past, which Trump has pointed out numerous times since the Strait of Hormuz was closed.

The United States has long sought to prevent Iraq or Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, but not because these countries would pose a direct threat to the United States. The American nuclear arsenal would have been more than adequate to deter a first strike by either of them, as it has been for decades against far more powerful adversaries. What American administrations have feared is that an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons would be more difficult to contain in its region, because neither the United States nor Israel would be able to launch the kind of attack now under way. The Middle East’s security, not America’s, would be imperiled. As for Israel, the United States committed to its defense out of a sense of moral responsibility after the Holocaust. This never had anything to do with American national-security interests. In fact, American officials from the beginning regarded support for Israel as contrary to U.S. interests. George C. Marshall opposed recognition in 1948, and Dean Acheson said that by recognizing Israel, the United States had succeeded Britain as “the most disliked power in the Middle East.” During the Cold War, even supporters of Israel acknowledged that as a simple matter of “power politics,” the United States had “every reason for wishing that Israel had never come into existence.” But as Harry Truman put it, the decision to support the state of Israel was made “not in the light of oil, but in the light of justice.”

Even the threat of terrorism from the region was a consequence of American involvement, not the reason for it. Had the United States not been deeply and consistently involved in the Muslim world since the 1940s, Islamic militants would have little interest in attacking an indifferent nation 5,000 miles and two oceans away. Contrary to much mythology, they have hated us not so much because of “who we are” but because of where we are. In Iran’s case, the United States was deeply involved in its politics from the 1950s until the 1979 revolution, including as the main supporter of the brutal regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The surest way of avoiding Islamist terrorist attacks would have been to get out.

America’s interests in the Middle East have always been indirect and secondary to larger global aims and strategies. During World War II, the United States led a coalition of nations that depended on the greater Middle East for oil and strategic position. During the Cold War, the United States assumed responsibility not only for the defense of the Jewish state but for the defense and economic well-being of European and Asian allies who depended on Middle Eastern oil. After the Cold War, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the George H. W. Bush administration believed that failing to reverse that aggression would set an ominous precedent in the aborning “new world order.”

That sense of global responsibility is precisely what the Trump administration came to office to repudiate and undo. The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, which has dramatically shifted the focus of American policy from world order to homeland security and hemispheric hegemony, appropriately downgraded the Middle East in the hierarchy of American concerns. A United States concerned only with defense of its homeland and the Western Hemisphere would see nothing in the region worth fighting for. In the heyday of “America First” foreign policy during the 1920s and ’30s, when Americans did not regard even Europe and Asia as vital interests, the idea that they had any security interests in the greater Middle East would have struck them as hallucinatory.

One would be hard-pressed to find any nation in the world that has been reassured by the Israeli and American war against Iran, other than Israel itself. According to The Wall Street Journal, Gulf state leaders are “privately furious” with the U.S. for “triggering a war that put them in the crosshairs.” Despite its impressive power, the United States was unable to protect these countries from Iran’s attacks; now they have to hope that Trump will not leave them to face a weakened yet intact and angry Iranian regime but will instead double down on America’s long-term military commitment to the region, including by putting ground troops in Iran. Israelis should also be asking how far they can count on the Americans’ dedication to this fight. A United States capable of abandoning long-standing allies in Europe and East Asia will be capable of abandoning Israel too. Can Israel sustain its new dominance in the region without a long and deep American commitment?

The unintended effect of the war, in fact, may be driving regional players to seek other great-power protectors in addition to the United States. Trump himself has invited the Chinese to help open the strait, and the Chinese are actively courting the Arab and Gulf states. The Gulf states are not averse to dealing with Beijing and Moscow. Neither is Israel. It sold management of a container terminal in the port of Haifa to a Chinese company, despite objections from the U.S. Navy, which uses the port. Israel, practically alone among American allies, refused to take part in sanctions against Russia when it invaded Ukraine in 2022. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran for reelection in 2019, some of his campaign posters showed him shaking hands with Putin under the tagline a different league. No one should blame Israelis for this. They are an independent nation and can be expected to do what they feel they need to do to survive. Americans may have a sentimental or religious attachment to Israel, but Israelis cannot afford to be sentimental in return.

That is especially true given this administration’s cavalier attitude toward international responsibilities. The Iran war is global intervention “America First”–style: no public debate, no vote in Congress, no cooperation or, in many cases, even consultation with allies other than Israel, and, apparently, no concern for potential consequences to the region and the world. “They say if you break it, you own it. I don’t buy that,” Senator Lindsey Graham, arguably Trump’s most influential adviser on the war, said.

For Europeans, the problem is worse than American disregard and irresponsibility. They now face an unremittingly hostile United States—one that no longer treats its allies as allies or differentiates between allies and potential adversaries. The aggressive tariffs Washington imposed last year hit America’s erstwhile friends at least as hard as they hit Russia and China, and in some cases harder. Europeans must now wonder whether Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran makes it more or less likely that he will take similarly bold action on Greenland. The risks and costs of taking that undefended Danish territory, after all, would be far less than the risks and costs of waging the present war. Not some EU liberal but Trump’s conservative friend, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recently warned that American actions have produced a “crisis in international law and multilateral organizations” and “the collapse of a shared world order.”

[…] Friends and allies will be ever less willing to cooperate with the United States. This time, Spain refused American use of air and naval bases in its territory. Next time, that could be Germany, Italy, or even Japan. Nations around the world will come to rely not on American commitments and permanent alliances but on ad hoc coalitions to address crises. No one will cooperate with the United States by choice, only by coercion. Without allies, the United States will have to depend on clients that it controls, such as Venezuela, or weaker powers that it can bully.

Funnily enough, one of Kagan’s last predictions just came true: Italy joined Spain in closing down its airspace this morning.

Is this not rather a sign of TDS? Kagan spends decades advocating war with Iran, hates Trump; Trump delivers war with Iran, now Kagan is against the war. It’s not that Kagan was ever wrong or ever changed his mind see, it’s just that Donald Trump is wrong about whatever it is we’re talking about today.

You spend long time advocating for a dinner.

Your spouse finally relents, starts cooking and makes huge grease fire in the kitchen.

Now you are against dinner? Hypocrite!

To be fair, the dinner the neocons were advocating for was impossible to make and they have a horrible track record in general.

They may have wanted dinner, but their recipe was always going to result in a grease fire of some size.

The war is going well. We decapitated Iran's entire leadership in a week and have been systematically destroying the manufacturing base of their army. In retaliation, Iran has lashed out desperately at allies and third parties. How could it have gone any other way? What magical war would the neocons have wrought? Is there some President Obama Iran war where the IRGC doesn't threaten Hormuz? Maybe a President Biden war where social media isn't saturated with rumor and hyperventilating defeat?

How could it have gone any other way?

Not having a war, perhaps a policy of "no new wars"

What magical war would the neocons have wrought?

None, neocons are retards, especially about wars, especially about wars in the middle east. Their opinions on such matters should be ignored.

And the Europeans aren't willing to lift a finger to defend themselves against damage caused by Iran's war crimes (yes, attacking neutral shipping is a war crime), and instead blame America for provoking Iran into doing it.

What is your opinion on striking desalination plants?

Neutral or belligerent? Supplying military installations or not?

Belligerent and water is pretty fungible and I doubt military bases have dedicated desalination plants so it's just a normal one near a city but we can assume some goes to service members.

Although to pre-empt something I'll probably say later, one problem with "we'll cut off their service members water by hitting the desalination plants" is that in most countries that use desalination, they have other sources of water too, just not enough for everyone. So the military, having guns, will always get 100% of their water needs. It's the civilians who end up short.

Idk why I'm beating around the bush. I'm asking if you think hitting Iranian desalination plants is a war crime (or adjacent , I have no interest in splitting legal hairs). Especially given it will likely not reduce military effectiveness and will inflict a lot of suffering on the civilian population that Trump/the USA is claiming to be fighting to free from their (absolutely awful) government.

Edit: To continue not beating around the bush, I will state my opinion.

I do not think striking a desalination or power plant or other dual use but largely civilian infrastructure is a "War Crime" by the legal definition (however, I have not googled it so could be wrong). However I do think it is the kind of move that should be reserved for a total war against an existential threat. I think blowing shit up that hurts 99 civilians for every 1 service member who is inconvenienced is wildly disproportionate is a dick move, and is quite shitty from an ethical front when the war is not an existential threat for societal survival.

I don't really blame Ukraine for trying to hit Russian power infrastructure, as they're fighting for the survival of the nation of "Ukraine". I think the Russian government/military are monsters for doing that to Ukraine, as they're fighting for.... who fucking knows. Sunk cost basically at this point lol.b

Belligerent and water is pretty fungible

No, not at all. Kuwait, for instance, is not a belligerent.

I doubt military bases have dedicated desalination plants so it's just a normal one near a city but we can assume some goes to service members.

Which makes them dual-use infrastructure, which means they are not absolutely protected from attack but rather are subject to the usual rules of proportionality (military advantage vs. collateral civilian damage)

Especially given it will likely not reduce military effectiveness and will inflict a lot of suffering on the civilian population that Trump/the USA is claiming to be fighting to free from their (absolutely awful) government.

As far as I know, the only desalination plant to be hit (allegedly) is on Qeshm Island. Which Iran is currently (and predictably) using as part of their strategem to control the Strait. This makes it an arguably reasonable target on its face, though I do not know enough details to know if it's really a reasonable target. (I also don't know if it was actually hit or if it was, if it was itself collateral damage)

Is this not rather a sign of TDS? Kagan spends decades advocating war with Iran, hates Trump; Trump delivers war with Iran, now Kagan is against the war.

Have you read the excerpt? Kagan is obviously a fan of the US being the leader of the free world (a model which worked well enough for the Western world during the Cold War). I would imagine that his policy (which is more or less that of GWB) is the antithesis of Trump's foreign policy, superfluous similarities (bombing brown people) aside.

In guess in his model, a regime change operation in Iran would work differently.

First, Iran would have to violate the JCPOA so badly that most signatories would agree that it was not salvageable, because unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty would damage the image of the US as a reliable partner. (For Trump, Obama's signature was reason enough -- he clearly does not give a fuck about how other countries see the US.)

Then, the US would try to form a broad coalition, come up with a strategic plan to actually achieve the objectives, think about the obvious Iran countermeasures and how to block them, wait until the troops are in the area and then attack.

Trump did none of these things. He looked at the polling, saw that he would lose the mid-terms between Epstein and ICE, and decided to bomb Iran in a bid to cause regime change from the air. Unlike with Venezuela, he lost his gamble and did not achieve any strategic objectives, because no, blowing up missiles is not a strategic objective.

Your comment makes me update towards the real syndrome being TDSS, where people accuse others of having TDS -- treating the same actions differently when done by Trump -- when in fact the actions of Trump are at best vaguely similar.

Your comment makes me update towards the real syndrome being TDSS, where people accuse others of having TDS

I've noticed the same thing in recent months. People here have started to shout "TDS!" at almost any criticism of Trump whatsoever.

That doesn't seem right to me, because even though I agree with this specific criticism of Trump, and have called the decision to start the war a disaster, it still looks like blatant TDS to me. Neocons don't get to play doves.

I enjoy dunking on neocons, to borrow one of their terms, now that we've seen the fruits of their ideas, is a "target rich environment"

"Neocons don't get to play doves." Is a great statement

Dunno that "everyone" hates neocons, and even if there aren't any here, this is definitely an attempt to build consensus.

To be honest, I don't really know what "attempt to build consensus" means in this context.

But I clearly chose my words poorly (so I have edited them to be more clear), I have no intention of rallying the motte into an anti-neocon forum.

I did a time limited search to see what Kagan thought about the JCPOA before Trump got into office, and he was seemingly silent on the issue. Prior to the JCPOA he called the Iran nuclear program the biggest question to American security Obama would face. Given that silence we can't know what he thought about the JCPOA in a Trump-free world. However, his lack of commentary while fellow Neocons were very loud about how it was a shit sandwich with no enforcement mechanisms that gave Iran everything up front (oddly correct by the Neocons here), indicates he was already departing from the neocon camp into a more full-Dem partisan camp at that time.

Regardless of Kagan's views at the time, I do always find appeals to the JCPOA facile and stupid. Its not a treaty, and other countries who were party to it didn't care about any part of the agreement besides getting more Iranian petrol and LNG. They were never going to think it was sufficiently violated to think it wasn't salvageable, because they didn't care about any of the alleged burdens on Iran. They only were interested in the US's obligations.

Given all that, there is no path to a "broad coalition" Iran could have been doing all the terrorist funding it has been since 2015, just with extra money because of lifted sanctions, and then put up a big clock in Tehran in Jan 2024 that said, "Countdown to Nuclear ICBM completion" with a 365 day countdown and none of the other countries would have cared. America would be left with this same coalition of Israel + a couple of ME countries pissed about Iran's terrorism.

That doesn't mean Trump didn't fuck this up. He's unarguably failed rhetorically selling the war to the public. He's seemingly underestimated the IRGC's leadership depth. And he's also seemingly committed to no ground troops, which means he can't secure the straight long term. But, about the last point, it is also kind of a stupid criticism of Trump. There's nothing that says Iran needs to attack French and Chinese vessels because they are at war with America. In fact, that is just piracy. The fact that the French and Chinese blame America is a kind of derangement in its own right. In more normal times France would be the one threatening to nuke Tehran right now if they stopped or hit a single additional French flagged vessel.

The fact that the French and Chinese blame America is a kind of derangement in its own right.

Doesn't seem that deranged? France is unmistakably tied to America. Regardless of France's opinion on attacking Iran, from the perspective of Iran, France is not a friend as they are allied to their enemy.

Thus France is now having problems it did not cause. Let alone the broader global fuel market issues which it would be exposed to even if Iran let every French ship anywhere it wanted.

Everyone blames the USA and not Iran because the USA started this round*

*I'm not trying to litigate 100 years of tit for tat, but the most recent round of shit exploding began with Isreali and US fighter jets making things explode. They took the initiative and fired the first shots of 2026, and now get to own it as a result.

Similarly, China is effected by the global fuel issues, AND has every incentive to blame the USA for literally anything given they are geopolitical rivals both fighting for influence.

The USA is not engaged in piracy no.

So the difference between Bush bombing Iran and Trump is ? Lipstick on a pig? GWB took the time to flatter and lie to some Europeans before he bombed a bunch of brown people ? Trump just bombed them and skipped the lying?

GWB took the time to flatter and lie to some Europeans

This does matter if you want allies to support you, which is usually nice to have, although not required in this case

Yeap, that’s what matters. The process matters as much as the results.

While I agree that there's definitely criticisms to be made of the war even from a neocon perspective, this does read like TDS. The war on Iran is easily justifiable from a Neocon perspective(we invaded Iraq over less), and there is an international coalition- it happens to be middle eastern countries rather than European ones, but it's there.

(bombing brown people)

Every ethnicity in Iran is light skinned, and the dominant one has an extremely long history of civilization. Are Chinamen 'brown people'? Russians?

First off, I am not a neocon (I was opposed to GWB's Iraq war for example), and don't know how good I a am at the ideological Turing test.

Still, I would say that execution matters. In Iraq and even Afghanistan, the US at least managed to achieve some strategic objectives, like toppling the regimes. A neocon might argue that the bombings were means to an end. (Of course, in my point of view, neither operation achieved a desirable long term strategic outcome.)

Afghanistan was a blunder but at least not an obvious blunder, I am sure that some people predicted that the nation-building would fail, but I was personally not certain of that.

With Trump's Iran war, the blunder is obvious immediately. He gambled on regime change through bombing, and his gamble failed, and he does not have a plan B which is why he is bullshitting about Iran surrendering any day now.

(bombing brown people)

Every ethnicity in Iran is light skinned, and the dominant one has an extremely long history of civilization. Are Chinamen 'brown people'? Russians?

This phrasing annoyed some people, including @Shakes. I apologize, also for being factually incorrect as you point out.

What I meant to suggest was that for the US, killing people in far-away lands which are of different (particular Muslim) cultures is just Tuesday. I think the USG began using drone strikes to blow up weddings beginning in 2010 under Nobel laureate Obama and continuing under Trump. The median voter did not give a damn. My phrasing meant to suggest that few voters cared because the victims were not Caucasians. I certainly did not mean to suggest that I bought into any framework where 'brown' people mattered less personally. I do realize that I am posting on a forum where such views exist, so that was a failure to clearly communicate on my part.

On reflection, I do not think the racism answer for drone death apathy is quite true. The CW waves created by police shooting innocent blacks by mistake are second to none. I think that it is more a case of Newtonian Ethics. People in Afghanistan or Iran are far removed from Americans both in space and social graphs. My personal guess is that the US military killing Australians would upset the voters a lot more. Sure, Australia is also far away, but they speak English and their most recent common cultural ancestor is much more recent.

Of course, Trump has shown the median voter also do not care about him blowing up "drug smuggling" ships presumably crewed by Hispanics, which are both culturally and spatially closer to the US. I am a bit puzzled why that is. It might just be opportunity to oppose, though: in foreign matters, the president has a lot of leeway, so activists can not do much to stop him from ordering military strikes. On US soil, his power is much more limited, so activists can oppose him for sending in ICE or the like.

Of course, Trump has shown the median voter also do not care about him blowing up "drug smuggling" ships presumably crewed by Hispanics, which are both culturally and spatially closer to the US. I am a bit puzzled why that is.

I'm also surprised by this. I assume largely to do with the cartels having a justifiably awful reputation. Everyone sees how they shit up Mexico.

But then why do people go so hard against ICE when ICE was trying to target criminal immigrants, etc? I think partially bc those opposed didn't believe the "criminal focus" bit. But also bc boats sink with their evidence, vs the infinite clips of ICE doing stuff (many posted by ice itself lol)

But then why do people go so hard against ICE when ICE was trying to target criminal immigrants, etc? I think partially bc those opposed didn't believe the "criminal focus" bit. But also bc boats sink with their evidence, vs the infinite clips of ICE doing stuff (many posted by ice itself lol)

Based on personal conversations with boomer libs, they just believe straight up crazy things about the situation. That ICE is rounding up random brown people, including citizens, and torturing and killing them just for fun, and sending them to FOREIGN TORTURE PRISONS, all with absolutely no legal authority to do anything because they're not cops.

They appear to literally believe that Donald Trump created ICE as a kind of para-military KKK to enact his evil as the wicked emperor of America. That's why they're so gung-ho to seek vengeance on ICE agents. They think of it like "Molly Weasley killing Bellatrix Black", and not "jailing law enforcement for enforcing the law on child rapists".

We've had a lot of discourse about right-wing radicalization, but the shit women on TikTok are getting up to is a genuine Abyss where reality goes to die.

Yeah exactly they believe all kinds of insane stuff.

So then why didn't they believe the drugs boats were fishing boats? Or the drug boats were Hispanic cruises? Or any number of untrue things.

Like people went insane over ICE, and the boat strikes got like 15 minutes of attention.

I assume proximity, but it's just funny.

There's plenty who DO believe the drug boats are fishing boats. They're still going on about Andrés Fernando Tufiño Chila.

With Trump's Iran war, the blunder is obvious immediately. He gambled on regime change through bombing, and his gamble failed, and he does not have a plan B which is why he is bullshitting about Iran surrendering any day now.

I think this is the problem. I don't suppose to read Trump's mind at all. Moreover, I don't understand why we assume that Trump's only goal is regime change through bombing -- the speech he himself made at the start of the war lists several other objectives, such as destroying Iran's ability to produce missiles and project force in the Middle East.

I'm rambling about this here because I see this as a case of a kind of "degenerate case" we can't ever really argue out of.

Everything is a matter of taste. Basically, you think something is plausible. I don't. We can argue and butt heads about the underlying facts or methods or fallacies and such. But you think your interpretation of the world is plausible, and I don't. You think that not even because of one news story about Donald Trump and Iran or a month's worth of coverage. It's your entire life and experience that inform your point of view. Likewise mine. For you it's reasonable to imagine Trump acting rashly on a gamble and to interpret everything subsequent as bullshitting. I imagine that comes through not just a decade of interpreting Trump but, e.g. --: honing your personal sense of "bullshit" arguing with partners and family and coworkers; matching the news with your own expertise and intuiting when you can believe your eyes and when you can't; values about what's important in the world and a related sense of who you can trust as allies to inform you about the world; etc. etc. etc. Well, we probably have very different life experiences.

I can say, for instance, that I have some familiarity with military intelligence, and that informs what I believe. And I don't think it's possible e.g. that Trump just hit launch by the seat of his pants because there must exist detailed plans that have been drafted for decades for every contingency. But if I'm being honest, it's not as though I have direct experience of the (putative) Situation Room. I don't actually know Donald Trump. It's possible I'm wrong about everything, I'm only filling in the blanks of things I can never possibly know with my imagination. And hoping that my imagination is quite powerful.

Opinions are primarily formed through life experience. And the vast majority of life experience is media consumption.

When I used to have these arguments with Yassine, I think he perceived my skepticism of Truth to be quite radical. I would say that, well, ultimately, we don't really know that. That story is something that happened in the Oval Office and was witnessed by maybe six people, and one (or two of them) with an axe to grind talked to a reporter, who was edited by his boss, until a story was written up with a headline eye for drama, posted for twitter without any context, except whatever context it is we're all of us each carrying with us all the time. And you're not even considering the stories twitter surfaced to me but not to you. Yassine would say, well, sure, but isn't it convenient that you don't believe whatever isn't convenient for you? I think he thought I was arguing some post-truth magical realism, concomitant with Donald Trump crying "Fake News" and dumb conservacon talking head punditry. And maybe there was some sense in what I was saying as a kind of trivial philosophy, but, well, it's awfully convenient, isn't it?

I'm rambling about this because it does strike me as a particular problem and not a general one. We could be having an argument about facts and figures. We could be debating radically different visions of The Good and how society should operate. I think most Culture War debates tend into these categories, and are much more acrimonious in that way.

Well, I believe that Donald Trump is the most successful man alive and has total control over Iran and everything is going to work out fine. But I can't really be mad at anybody for seeing things differently or even thinking this is the craziest thing they've ever heard in their life. So it goes, right?

This phrasing annoyed some people, including @Shakes. I apologize, also for being factually incorrect as you point out.

So, in that spirit, I'm not sure we can ever really understand each other; Because everything was formed through experience. I can't put you under the fluorescent light where my dentist swore that it was true that my father used to get his teeth drilled without anesthetic, where he would say that pain was a choice and he could choose not to feel it. I can't put you on the chair where my aunt's girlfriend waved her arms over my head like a jedi mindtrick and an image of a clogged sink flashed through my head and my chronic neuropathy dissolved forever, although a friend calls that a placebo and I suppose his imagination is as good as mine. And I'm not sure where I learned to love America or believe in God except that I observe these feelings bubbling up from within me as plainly as I obviously feel the rain when I forget my umbrella during a storm, etc. etc. Maybe you have had good Chinese food and will sympathize when I declare it one of the great cuisines, and when my friends who have only tasted Kung Pao and the general can only titter and laugh about bats all I can do is shine. But I'm sure the reverse is true as well and I want to maintain a little humility when all I've done so far is talk about myself without ever really trying to understand you.

So I appreciate that we are, after all, just arguing to kill time and there's nothing personal about it.

And it's better actually to have these "arguments of the imagination" because we can at least acknowledge the gap and -- shrug? smile? As opposed to the other kinds of arguments where we have to do battle in some sense.

This is my problem with the phrase "bombing brown people". It's the kind of thing that transforms an imaginative gap into a personal one. Or at least it feels that way to me, I can't really propose that it's the same for everyone. But I feel as though people didn't talk this way when I was a kid. There were white people and black people, but nobody used the phrase "brown people" until the last Obama years and it felt vulgar to me then like some new viral load. I think the Progressives were using it in some sense to say, well, society is racist and it reduces people to colors, and it's important for us to talk in these terms so we can examine what is happening invisibly and unsaid. Maybe so but it always felt to me as though some words were being put in my mouth, because I never thought in these kinds of terms as far as I could tell. Or maybe this term preceded me and I was too young to notice and my perception that it's a new and vulgar insertion is totally without basis. I can't really know, you could show me Google N-Gram proof that it's been there all along, but I've also read somewhere that the moon landing was fake, and I don't really believe that either. Because all I'm doing is believing whatever feels convenient to me, exactly as Yassine said all along.

Anyways there's nothing for it but taste, everything is a matter of taste. And maybe time makes more converts than reason and time will tell and we can wait and see and one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. But my experience tells me that even then we'll be debating what it all means anyways forever and ever, like Vonnegut on Hamlet, a drama that never resolves. So there's nothing personal.

This is one of the best comments I've ever read on this site.

Because, whatever their views on the Iran war or drug interdiction, it seems inarguable that cartel crews or Islamofascistic regime enforcers are bad people, and that is what people care about- not what they have in common with them.

I am aware that you are German, but in America the death penalty is broadly extremely popular. 'The government killing bad guys' is a very popular position, and arguing about the niceties of exactly how they do this is splitting hairs. BLM gets support because of the view that many black victims of police shooting are not bad guys, or at least not bad enough to deserve the death penalty(AFAICT most of them die from their own stupidity after committing various crimes which carry prison sentences of less than a decade, which of course is pretty far off from offenses most Americans regard as justifiably capital).

While I agree that there's definitely criticisms to be made of the war even from a neocon perspective, this does read like TDS. The war on Iran is easily justifiable from a Neocon perspective(we invaded Iraq over less), and there is an international coalition- it happens to be middle eastern countries rather than European ones, but it's there.

I suspect part of the issue is a paradigm difference between the sort of people who view wars as discrete, self-contained periods of violence, and those who view the current conflict as just the latest campaign of a longer war that neither started or expected to end (hence why the war is basically an extended air raid). I don't think 'neocon' implies one way or the other, but I firmly suspect Kagan is among the former and the current war leaders are among the later.

It's a paradigm difference that matters because a Kagan-style neocon might have a binary view of war based on the expected ability to decisively win, but otherwise see themselves at peace otherwise. It struggles when put into a context where decisive victory is not possible (and thus would prefer peace), but also is also denied peace (because the enemy gets to vote and can engage in sustained asymmetric warfare).

This is why military science discussions over the last few decades have shifted away from war as a binary to the conceptualization of conflict continuums of degrees of intensity/lethality that can be moved between more easily. But that evolution in the literature was after Kagan established his professional persona, and there's no indication he's tried or wanted to update his own models, especially when TDS-posting gives him steady employment and prestigious placings.

Every ethnicity in Iran is light skinned, and the dominant one has an extremely long history of civilization.

The name "Iran" is derived from the same root as "Aryan".

And 'Ireland' and 'Aristocrat' and so on and so forth.

Neither "Ireland" nor "aristocrat" has the same root as "Aryan" or "Iran".

All of them come from the Indo-European root 'arstos'- either through the Greek 'aristos' or the Gaelic 'eire'.

Well, except "Ireland" and "Aryan".

superfluous similarities (bombing brown people)

When I read remarks like this I just lose interest in everything else the speaker to say. "Bombing brown people"? It's just a callous phrase

The callousness is the point, isn't it? No one self-labels as "I want to bomb brown people". It's an accusation against other people that they are callous because "They want to bomb brown people." Suggesting that someone else is callous doesn't strike me as callous.

That’s the turn-off. Dismissing opposing views without being able to describe them accurately. Even worse, it’s a cliche.

I think when the neocons wanted war with Iran, it certainly wasn't this kind of war.

I struggle to see what other kind of war could have been envisioned. Admittedly I'm not military myself, but I certainly hang out with a goodly number of current and former military personnel in various online and IRL spaces from several different branches -- they uniformly say that this is more or less a textbook example of the "American way of war." With focus on as-precise-as-technologically-possible aerial and missile strikes on political and military targets, down to the targeting of specific individuals, supported where possible by Special Forces/CIA paramilitary "dirty tricks" I don't see how this is functionally different from, e.g., the way we went into Afghanistan. The bombardment of Tehran, Isfahan, and IRGC infrastructure looks a lot like 2003 "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.

What, do you think Paul Wolfowitz was jonesing for the 82nd Airborne and 1st Infantry Division to be rolling from Turkey towards Tabriz?

The kind of war that I imagine guys like Kagan want is an extended low to medium intensity conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq circa 2010 that gives them a chance to posture and justify their salaries while funneling money to their friends and sponsors in the contracting world.

This war, at least so far, is not that.

What, do you think Paul Wolfowitz was jonesing for the 82nd Airborne and 1st Infantry Division to be rolling from Turkey towards Tabriz?

Yes, actually.

The big difference is the lack of buildup. There was no effort to sell the war to the public or to the international community. Trump relied on the element of surprise, the Sucker Punch Doctrine.

The result is low support. Even the Republican numbers are hovering in the 80s, where they were in Lizardman Constant territory at this point in the Iraq war. The USA had the Coalition of the Willing, with Britain Australia Poland etc deploying troops in Iraq. In Iran we have...Israel? I mean kinda but Israeli forces don't appear to be under direct command of a US general, where in Iraq all coalition forces were under a US commander (Spartan style).

Now obviously the bright side was the element of surprise, and for whatever reason we can't expect the Israelis to operate under a US command structure...but there are big differences in how the story will be seen.

The big difference is the lack of buildup. There was no effort to sell the war to the public or to the international community.

There was no way Donald Trump could do so. The "public" (meaning the mainstream media) and the "international community" (meaning Euro liberals) could not be convinced by Donald Trump. So he quite rationally did not waste any effort on this unachievable goal. He does seem to have brought the Gulf states into the fold (with the help of a feckless IRGC, granted).

Well, Trump didn't even bother trying to convince a domestic audience. Compact has a good overview of the collapse in basic propaganda efforts: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-GEcO360z1g&t=1484s

As I was saying to @hanikrummihundursvin up thread, to me this issue illustrates just how "siloed" the liberal media bubble has become from more conservative and internationalist ones.

Liberals feel like this came out of nowhere and as a result their first impulse blame the perfidious Jew. Meanwhile everyone else has been speculating about if/when the US would do something about Iran's repeated threats to global shipping, and the answer to those questions turned out to be "Yes" and "March 2026".

The threat to global shipping...just came from the US starting a war.

More comments

The neocon dream was a quick, decisive war to topple the IRI and replace it with a pro-American democracy. The specifics of how that was going to happen were probably pretty hazy and involved both underestimating Iran and overestimating the US, but I really doubt they envisioned an intense-yet-noncommittal air war with no meaningful ground element. As I will never shut up about: this war looks like a failed attempt at gunboat diplomacy with seemingly no plan if Iran didn't immediately cave.

The bombardment of Tehran, Isfahan, and IRGC infrastructure looks a lot like 2003 "Shock and Awe" in Iraq.

Not really. The point of "Shock and Awe"-style tactics is to disrupt enemy command and control so your ground forces can overwhelm theirs with limited organized resistance. There was no ground component to Operation Epic Fury.

This is honestly the problem I have with a lot of Trump 2.0. In broad strokes, a lot of the things the administration are doing could be sensible policies if done well, but instead Trump 2.0 seems intent on doing things in the most foolish and ill-considered way possible.

One of the examples that just gets me is the Harvard situation. Telling Harvard to not be racist was totally reasonable (especially since there was already Supreme Court precedence that what Harvard was doing was not legal), but following that up with, "Oh, and you've got to hire who we tell you to, and give us control of your admissions process so you admit more conservative students" was cuckoo bananas. The Trump administration somehow managed to make Harvard look sympathetic in all of that, and that was no easy feat.

but following that up with, "Oh, and you've got to hire who we tell you to, and give us control of your admissions process so you admit more conservative students" was cuckoo bananas.

How? Academics throughout the country openly admit they discriminate on political/idealogical grounds. What exactly is wrong with telling them to knock it off, if they want to keep getting federal goodies?

I would be okay with us passing a law that prevented discrimination on the basis of political ideology (some jurisdictions in the US already have such laws.) I might even be convinced that individual states passing laws to ensure more viewpoint diversity in state colleges could be a good thing.

But a single individual unilaterally twisting an existing law in order to interfere with hiring and firing decisions of a university in a way that interferes with the basic educational mission of that university is a bridge too far for me. I think universities need to change, but it should be done through gradual reforms or a new march through the institutions, not imposed all at once in a top down way for a variety of reasons.

Wasn't the dear colleagues letter exactly that?

I too would prefer congress establish those limits, but I believe the only way to get there is to have someone make so many intolerable policies following that, that the side that started this with that letter is sickened enough to not want to touch that rail again.

What's wrong with that? Having more conservative intellectuals at the highest level is, if anything, good for national stability- democracies with weak conservative wings deteriorate very fast, much faster than overwhelmingly conservative democracies(Japan etc).

But a single individual unilaterally twisting an existing law in order to interfere with hiring and firing decisions of a university in a way that interferes with the basic educational mission of that university is a bridge too far for me

Is it? Isn't there some conservative college, who's name escapes me, that makes a point of not accepting any federal help so they aren't on the hook for Title IX, and all the other federal fuckery, and the Dems are still always looking for ways to force them to run it their way? Why is it so beyond the pale to put conditions on a university that does get federal money, then?

You're thinking of Hillsdale College.

That's the one! Was at the tip of my tongue, thanks!

Isn't there some conservative college, who's name escapes me, that makes a point of not accepting any federal help so they aren't on the hook for Title IX, and all the other federal fuckery, and the Dems are still always looking for ways to force them to run it their way?

There was, Bob Jones University. They lost not just Federal funds but their tax-exempt status, and then knelt at the altar of equality.

Meanwhile, the University of California and others have explicit political tests for their faculty (in some cases also being fig-leaves for RACIAL tests), and that's fine. It's all who/whom and all very tiresome, and if Trump refuses to let them continue doing that he's not breaking any precedent except in aiming that power at the left for a change.

Why is it so beyond the pale to put conditions on a university that does get federal money, then?

I'm happy for federal money to come with strings attached. But within our system, I would prefer if the strings came from Congress and not from a unilateral action from the president.

It was wrong when Obama tried to do it with the Dear Colleague letter, and it is wrong when Trump tries to do it with the Harvard letter.

In many ways, I would prefer the federal government to stop funding universities altogether, so they couldn't use the withdrawal of funds as a threat against them. But in the context where the funding exists, I do think it should be handled in a way consistent with the principles of our constitutional republic as far as possible.

It was wrong when Obama tried to do it with the Dear Colleague letter, and it is wrong when Trump tried to do it with the Harvard letter.

The problem is that Obama didn't just try, he actually did it, so it's just a normal part of business now, even if you or I are against it in principle.

No offense, but this seems completely unworkable to me. The universities are already simply ignoring existing laws when it suits them, they'll just ignore those, too. They might at most need to find a paper-thin excuse that will allow already sympathetic judges/lawyers to sign it off, but I'm not sure even that is necessary.

A new march is impossible, since the old one was only possible thanks to the conservative old guard allowing it. Which is also the reason they lost to the trumpist new right.

I was going to say the same. That’s a more common thing than most people think.

What kind of war did they want instead

The kind of war where they bomb everyone else, but nobody gets to bomb them.

A quagmire where we set up a long-term occupation force only to reluctantly surrender 20 years later?

The ones where they reap all the benefit.

That remains yet to be seen; this thing is still barely a month old.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats