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 -
No peace deal with Iran
Can I just point out that 21 hours seems too short for negotiations? I don't think the talks were done in earnest, at all. The 150-page JCPOA took almost 2 years of frivolous negotiations and lasted just as long. A 21 hour session in the middle of an active conflict is not very likely to reach a better equilibrium that both parties are happy with. Iran carried bloodstained schoolbags of kids killed in the Minab strike on the flight to Pakistan, they were certainly not there to surrender. I suspect the administration (or at least Vance) already knew this, and deliberately structured one-sided terms intended to be rejected so Trump can attempt building political scaffolding for escalation and blame Iran ("Look, we offered Iran a peace deal and they chose not to accept it"). Meanwhile, the Israelis have been busy!
Between accepting one of the greatest strategic defeats in decades, and trying to prosecute a horrific war amidst historic energy and food prices, we remain stuck with the latter.
As far as I can tell the "negotiations" were just an excuse to avoid having to carry out "Power & Bridge Day"
The current cunning plan is to blockade the blockade and prevent Iranian or Iranian-approved ships from leaving. One might give this plan more credit if a month prior the same admin hadn't given Iranian oil sanctions relief under the pretense of reducing the pressure on oil markets. To flip-flop now guarantees the worst of both worlds: Iran still made billions from selling into the oil price spike and now the market is going to be hammered going straight from "peace in sight!" to "Strait even more closed than before!"
At least some oil bulls will get to eat lobster
I'm kind of amused now at everybody who was hyping up outrage and moral high ground at the original blockade. Like, closing a strait, that's beyond the pale, a war crime, clear justification for total war and carpet bombing, the rest of the world should rally behind Trump now right? Does Trump ever in any case go for keeping any moral high ground rather than 'What, they're doing the (supposedly bad thing) and we're not? Are we chumps or something? We gotta get in on this right now!'
Before Iran closed the strait, it was generally understood that customary international law required the strait remain open. After they closed the strait, the many nations of the world made it clear that there was no such custom, so Trump closing the strait is perfectly in line with precedent.
Though I suspect when the Truth Social post is translated to action, the US blockade will end up covering only Iran's ports, and so be in accordance with prior customary international law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link