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 agree with that. If Iran was within a year of getting nukes, proactively attacking would be within the Overton window. It probably would have been the consensus or near consensus.
While Israeli interests do push the US in a more hawkish direction, I actually think Israel is not the biggest consideration here. If Iran gets nukes, that sets off a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation and really changes how not just people in the Middle East, but quite likely outside the Middle East interact with both nukes and Iranian power. The Saudis will get nukes 0.5 seconds after the Iranians get them. Iran actually having nukes likely just flips the table in very hard to predict ways. That scenario is complicated enough, and calculating the force need to stop it and/or how much force is worth it quickly gets into complex territory.
Once the territory gets that complex, I'd say reasonable and informed minds can disagree and one can really only tell if a war is ultimately a good idea or bad idea in retrospect. While the current war so far, in both motive and conduct, seems like a bad idea to me I wouldn't be surprised if in a year in hindsight it turns out "yeah, it was a necessary if imperfect action."
I don't think you can say the US meaningfully "permitted" Russia to attack Ukraine. There is a lot of intermediate actions between doing nothing and starting WW3 over Putin's invasion, and the US has consistently aided Ukraine and injured Russia through that aid. If the goal is to discourage violating other nation's territory, the US has definitely shown that it will seriously hurt non-allied nations that do that. I'm not sure any other US president would've acted too differently to what Biden's Administration did since doing nothing encourages territorial revisionism, which destroys the nice pax-Americana we want to keep, and WW3 is too costly for a non-NATO ally.
EDIT: To be honest, I'm also not 100% confident how much AIPAC and pro-Israel sentiment really changes US policy. The Cold War US friendship with Israel, which as Suez showed was not 100% agreement, was mostly utilitarian against the pro-Soviet Arab Socialists. The US was allied to the Arab monarchies for the same reason. Especially given that the Arab monarchies are de facto Allies of Israel, I'm not sure how much US policy would change if every Evangelical and Israel lobbyist suddenly got Thanos snapped away. There are good non-sentimental reasons the US allies with who it allies with.
Don't really have any objection to your clarifications. A lot of people in general have bit on the propaganda, or are reflexively anti-Jew or Trump (thus my mentioning of Israel at all).
How much of a success this was won't be something we know for years, and how much necessary it was may not be something we know for decades.
Lots of people looking at painful short term costs and assuming that's all that matters for the discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link