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 was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?
Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.
I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.
North Korea having nukes hasn't impacted European security
Some others have hit on this but it's worth emphasizing - it's very possible the plan was to get nukes and then start bombing SA/Israel/Europe and/or closing Hormuz with a nuclear backstop.
Iran is not a rational actor. It is not North Korea. NK just wants to be left alone and engage in enough international crime to stay solvent. Iran has serious regional and religious goals it is willing to pursue at absurd cost.
It can't be allowed to have the bomb.
Iran has behaved consistently rationally throughout the whole affair. Non-US-aligned regimes seeking to acquire a nuclear deterrent if possible is survival 101 since Libya, and arguably since Iraq.
The only players in this conflict who, as a matter of sincere religious conviction, base their foreign policy on a desire to accelerate the fulfilment of their religion's end-time prophecies, are the Christian Zionists in the US.
Iran has not behaved consistently rationally. Random firing at nearby civilian targets is rational in the sense that it could be part of their strategic posture and pure evil, but some of the attacks (like on Azerbaijan and Diego Garcia) are clearly unfocused nonsense with negative benefit.
At absolute best they are irrational in the sense that degradation of their command and control has impaired their ability to coherently follow their war plan.
More options
Context Copy link
This is just noble savage nonsense, like everyone else who takes a stand against Christianity while blithely ignoring the egregiously worse comparisons from Islam. Are you really contending that religion has no influence on the behavior of a explicitly religious fundamentalist totalitarian government?
No - I am making a specific claim about an unusual aspect of American evangelical theology, which is that some US evangelicals think there is useful advice about present-day geopolitics to be found in Biblical end-times prophecies. ISIS apparently thought the same, but most religious fundamentalists don't, including Al-Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs.
The more normal religious fundamentalist approach to geopolitics is to think that if you get the country right with God you will be rewarded with worldly power. This is fundamental to both Saudi Salafism and Pakistani Deobandism, and appears to be how the Iranian mullahs think as well - I have never researched Shia theology so I can't comment in detail. It is also the more common stream of American evangelical thinking - the "let's immanentise the escheaton with an aggressive war in the Middle East" crowd are a minority.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a luxury belief for people who think that global security is a default condition. Europe doesn't have to care about the free flow of goods because the U.S. does it for them. It baffles me that the same people currently panicking about the traversability of the Strait of Hormuz would be indifferent to chaos or autocracy in the middle east. Is the supposition that, if the U.S. were to likewise walk away with "why should we care", peace and prosperity would flow unbounded?
There are only 1-3 non-autocracies in the middle east, depending on how you categorize Turkey and Lebanon, so that's not the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They would probably start tolling/restricting ships like they are now, and then it would very directly be Europe's problem, except that nukes would make direct action a lot more complicated. They might also start to support militant Islamic groups in Europe, because that's just what they do. North Korea is a lot more isolationist.
The militant Islamic groups in Europe are Sunni. The Iranian mullahs hate them more than they hate us.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No idea. Personally, I think it's both a fait accompli and very much not my problem. Sooner or later every country that can will have nukes, because it's the only way to make sure that people like Trump don't roll over you. This invasion may have pushed Iran nuclear weapons back 10 years, 20 years, or maybe not, but between them America and Russia have guaranteed that in a hundred years there will be nukes all over IMO.
Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith. If 'what we can' isn't enough for you, please stop crashing our economy.
Nah, let's be real, there's no way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link