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 -
IRAN WINS IRAN WAR
President Trump on Truth Social:
Iran foreign minister Araghchi confirms the agreement.
No regime change
Assurances of "safe" passage through the strait of Hormuz, but no assurance of "free" passage.
Absolutely no mention of uranium, enrichment, or nuclear weapons.
No mention of proxies.
Possible sanctions relief.
I have a hard time believing that the USG will actually accept any of the stated points. Every one but the first seems like a non-starter, and taken together seems beyond disastrous for US interests (as well as unbelievably humiliating).
Isn’t Congress required to lift most sanctions against Iran? Most Democrats are still broadly anti-Iran and won’t want to give Trump a win, and many Republicans are hardliners, why would they vote for sanctions relief?
Because if they vote against it, they co-own the war, nullifying the gains from Trump's unpopular decision to start it. The Reps probably would vote against it either way.
That's assuming Trump won't just do it via an EO, and dare anyone to push back.
“The President launched a disastrous war that he lost, and now to save face wants to claim victory by signing a far worse version of the deal we negotiated under Obama, and which he left and rejected. The Iranians know the Democrats actually stand by their word, so when we come back to power, we’ll negotiate a better deal ourselves” is a powerful argument and certainly doesn’t make it look like like they co-own the war, which Trump would claim either way if necessary. By the way, this works even if they agree to the same deal later on - there’s no game theoretical reason for the Dems to agree.
Even if people bought the argument, they'd also have to explain how two more years of being bombed would make them more likely to negotiate. It looks like co-owning the war either way.
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