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 -
Are you imagining a situation where the US government lashes out at every boat completely irrationally? Or a world where it is predictable for them to do so because it helps ensure their survival? If it's the latter, I would indeed blame China for not foreseeing the consequences of their actions and planning and revising accordingly.
I wouldn't be happy with the US either, but Washington doing what I'd predict they'd do wouldn't update my view of Washington.
Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not rationally ensuring their survival. It makes regime change more pressing. It is confirmation that they are indeed lead by a doomsday death cult, justifying the US treating them like that.
I'm tired of the US (or I guess Israel) being treated like the only country that has any agency in the world. We do something, it's our fault. We don't do something, it's our fault. Our enemies do something, it's our fault. If we didn't attack Iran and they went on a nuclear rampage in 10 years, it would be our fault. What does Europe even want from us? Why should we keep trying to seek their approval when it's just impossible to get? If we acted like Europe we'd all be dead or Soviets. Don't they want us to act differently? Don't they want us to be the Yang to their Yin? And if not, I think we just need to stop caring about what Europe wants at all.
You already tried regime-changing them when they weren't blocking the strait! What do they have to lose at this point? Please, try having some theory of mind.
Can you give an example of that?
What if they don't go on a nuclear rampage, just use it as a deterrent the way North Korea does, and all your little intervention accomplishes is more refugees and higher gas prices?
It would be nice if your president could follow the foreign policy that he campaigned on during the elections.
In 2012, President Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be a "red line" that would make us likely to intervene militarily. A major sarin gas attack in Ghouta happened August 2013. President Obama pivoted to a diplomatic deal brokered by Russia. Hooray, we can't possibly have made the Europeans mad by not doing something!
However, you'd be surprised. France was particularly incensed. President Hollande had already authorized French jets to prepare for takeoff, expecting a coordinated strike with the U.S. When the US pulled back at the last minute, French officials felt humiliated and "left in the lurch." Foreign Minister Fabius later remarked, "We regret it because we think it would have changed many things," and suggested that this perceived American weakness emboldened Russia's later annexation of Crimea.
British PM Cameron remained frustrated that the world's response was being "contracted out" to a Russian veto at the UN. He argued that the failure to act would damage the credibility of international prohibitions on chemical weapons.
Germany was happy, so I guess we can make the Germans happy if we just stayed in our borders.
This event is often cited by European leaders as the moment they realized they could not always rely on U.S. security guarantees, fueling the modern push for European "strategic autonomy." Which, to be honest, more power to them.
But then if you look at the parallels to the current situation, it's striking. Trump gives a red line, "Don't harm protestors." Iran kills them by the thousands. This time, we act. Now like before there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Ok, fair enough. France and the UK were clearly retarded here, and you guys did the right thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Iranian regime is in a life or death situation (its upper echelons being already dead) and it is doing something that has given it the upper hand and that it hopes could give it negotiating power or put pressure on the US. I have no idea if this is the best strategy and certainly not saying it's a morally good one, but it seems to make sense as something that many groups of politicians threatened with imminent death might do. Nor does it prove they are a doomsday cult. (They are, but this doesn't prove it.) I also don't agree that it makes (one of) the US's original stated goals of regime change more pressing. Or maybe it does make it more pressing in absolute terms, but in relative terms it creates an even more pressing need: to solve the energy crisis. It thereby creates restrictions on what the US can do to end the regime. Again, seems rational.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link