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 am sorry that four-letter words offend your sensibilities while you boast about hot tub cuckoldry. But I understand cause and effect just fine.
There is a thing called history.
All of your predictions are weasel-worded so that no matter what actually happens, you can claim you were correct.
What does that mean?
Does it mean the US says "You're not allowed to do this"? We are already telling them that. They weren't "allowed" to build nukes, bomb their neighbors, and fund terrorists before the war. And yet they did.
Does it mean that if Iran does any of those things, we will remove their government?
Does it mean that if Iran does any of those things, we will bomb them until they stop doing it?
And if we do that, do we bomb them until their latest facility is rubble, their latest salvo of missiles is expended, and then brush our hands off and say "Mission accomplished"? You will write another ode to Trump's historically unprecedented brilliance as you clasp your hands staring up at him in girlish starry-eyed adoration, and then a few months later Iran starts doing the same thing again, but that's okay, we didn't "allow" it so you can insist Trump totally won. Just like they aren't "unilaterally" tolling the Strait of Hormuz if they aren't literally invoicing every ship that passes through. You have constructed "victory conditions" with great craft and maximum wiggle room.
If we are in exactly the same place in two years, with Iran developing a nuclear weapons program, launching missiles in the Gulf, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and funding terrorists, and our response is another very strict spanking (bombing), you will claim your predictions were correct because, well, we're not "allowing" Iran to do these things.
What have we accomplished?
What we have accomplished is relearning the lesson that you can't just bomb a country into submission, that "Shock and awe" only goes so far. A lot of Americans still have this fantasy that we can just bomb, bomb, bomb until our enemies are glass, we will "bomb them into the stone age," and no boots on the ground or compromises will ever be required.
Unless we're literally willing to go nuclear (and maybe not even then), no, we can't.
The closest we ever got to this was World War II. We literally nuked two Japanese cities, we firebombed Tokyo (doing much more damage than the atomic bombs did), and Japan's navy and air force was more thoroughly annihilated than anything we have done to Iran. And still we were facing the very real prospect of having to invade the Japanese islands at enormous cost.
Think about that. Japan had been as thoroughly curb-stomped as any nation in history, and we still thought we'd have to go in to finish the job because bombing wasn't enough, and if we didn't finish the job, they could eventually rebuild and become a threat again.
Japan ended up surrendering more because they were worried about the Soviets reaching them than because they were afraid of more cities being bombed.
If you (and Trump) are not willing to treat Iran like we treated Japan in World War II, complete with the commitment to invade if necessary, then we have not curb-stomped them. The threat is not removed. We have not "won" anything meaningful to us. Iran losing doesn't mean we won.
You’re just ranting and raving at me for no reason I can charitably make out except some kind of animus, it’s annoying if not rude and I’ll prbalu never define terms to your liking. Whatever man. The vast majority of people understand what I mean when I say Iran won’t be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Look you can just tell me to go fuck myself I’m not actually going to get offended and it’s much easier that way than continuing to misunderstand me in the most basic terms possible.
Likewise the hot tub story is not that deep man it’s obviously for color, actually it’s about how you can lead a horse to water but you can’t convince him of anything. We are winning the Iran war because we destroyed their military and there’s basically nothing they can do about it. Therefore I predict the peace will be mostly on America’s terms. Because we’re winning. This is the simple meaning of my words there is no 5D thesaurus lookup where I’ve actually redefined losing as winning so I can be a gooned out stoner boy blissfully dreaming of magacock. I’m saying we won. I’m saying that’s obvious. I’m saying the peace deal will obviously be on winning terms. Or we’ll keep bombing Iran. And that no matter what I can’t really convince anybody who doesn’t want to be convinced because I’m still sitting in hot tubs with guys who think Trump sold us out to the Norks because Vladimir Putin has nuclear pee tapes or whatever.
I'm not ranting. Don't be absurd. This is not personal animus.
What I am doing is noticing. I'm noticing that I am not the only one asking you to define victory, to define winning, to define "allow." You just keep repeating "We bombed Iran, we won!" And reasonable people are asking "What did that gain us?" "How does this change the situation?" And most importantly "Can you actually make a prediction with falsifiability?"
Here's my prediction: in one year, Iran is still our enemy and at the very least, is credibly accused of still funding terrorist organizations. Within 3-5 years, Iran is credibly accused of continuing its nuclear program, and is posing an ongoing threat to the region, with a reconstituted military presence. In that time, we do not have normalized, let alone cordial, relations with Iran.
This is all predicated on the cease fire holding; if we go back to bombing, maybe a ground invasion is still on the table. In which case I will adk what our best case "victory conditions" will be.
Will you acknowledge that if my predictions are correct, you were wrong? Or will you weasel out of admitting any conditions in which you could be proven wrong.
I will acknowledge that if American tourists are vacationing in Tehran in a few years at Trump hotels, Trump was a very stable genius after all. More seriously, Iran ceasing to be a threat in any of the ways I have described will prove me wrong.
Your move.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link