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 would have to disagree with this. The leadership regularly chants "death to America" and has done so for some time. It's reasonable to believe that this means what it seems to mean. Iran has regularly attacked Israel even though Israel would gladly accept an uneasy peace with it just like Israel has with Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE.
Even if the US did absolutely nothing to harm Iran, Iran's leadership would still have strong incentive to harm the US if they thought they could get away with it. As a way of gaining clout in the Muslim world.
The Iranians chant death to America and the ayatollah has publicly gone to great length to explain that the slogan is not a direct wish for harm against American citizens, but a screed against their government and its belligerence and hostility towards Iran.
Which fits rather snugly as a contrast with the more Orwellian terminology of the west, like 'regime change', 'liberation' or other such verbiage. Which then translates to aerial bombing campaign with large amounts of civilians killed in practice.
Outside of drastic otherization and dehumanization, saying that Iran is exporting terrorism or spouting threatening rhetoric is functionally meaningless. In context their actions are a rational consequence to US and Israeli strategy in the region. Be that state sponsored invasions of Iran, the funding of terrorists in the region or other destabilizing actions such with Syria, Iraq and Libya.
And it's hard to pretend that Iran is hogging all the religious lunatics when Americans have decades of failed Zionist adjacent policies laying in their backyard. Along with theologians like Mike Huckabee, Pete Hegseth or Paula White.
This is silly. If you're buying this then I have a bridge to sell uou.
Realistically it's somewhere in between. You have to understand that the US is literally Hitler to theocratic Iran. Not just morally, but in its "founding legend" and historical sense of self. So America is not just some foreign country, it's emblematic of their very independence. As such, chants of "Death to America" are somewhat patriotically entwined. Of course, now that we have literally been at war, the tone will probably be a bit different for the next decade.
More options
Context Copy link
If Americans say "Fuck Iran", are they expressing a literal desire to copulate with the mullahs?
"Death to America" is an idiom with a similar meaning in a different language and cultural context.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not really in the market for a bridge, but if you can sell me an alternative explanation for what Iranians truly mean and feel that doesn't rely on blank otherization of them being blood thirsty animals with no rationality or reason, I'm all ears.
The basic rule is that in assessing peoples' motivations, you pay more attention to their actions and less attention to their self-serving words. Iran's leadership has demonstrated -- through its actions -- what it means by its longstanding "Death to Israel" policy. It has been aggressively and chronically attacking Israel in general for many years now. Not just Israeli leadership or military facilities, but general attacks on everyone. The reasonable inference is that "Death to America" means something similar.
Simply not true.
Iran has shown through actions that it retaliates in measured and controlled ways to defend itself. Israel has demonstrated a complete disregard for human life time and time again. Which is demonstrable by Gaza looking like rubble.
Let's talk, for example, about Iran's proxy attack against Madjal Shams in July of 2024 which killed 12 children on a soccer field.
Are you saying that this was a "measured and controlled" retaliation by Iran for purposes of self-defense?
Are you saying that that this attack was just an accident and Iran had some other target in mind? If so, what was the target?
Or are you simply denying that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy?
Or how about the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community Center in Argentina. Do you maintain that this was "measured and controlled" retaliation by Iran for purposes of self-defense? Or do you simply deny that Iran was responsible for this attack?
I would have to disagree with this. Self-defense sometimes results in rubble, particularly if the aggressor hides in hospitals, mosques, and schools.
We are already talking about this topic in a different thread where I have answered some of these questions. Why are you asking them again?
A missile hit a playground full of children by accident.
No.
Yes. The target would have been an Israeli military installation, a few kilometers from the football field, per wikipedia and reports of similar attacks directed against local Israeli military installations during the same time period.
It was a revenge attack for deaths caused by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine. It was about as measured and controlled as Israeli attacks often are. There are also theories that the attacks relate to broader geopolitical disruptions between Argentina, Syria and Iran, but I'm not particularly tuned in to that area of expertise.
Then what is your contention? Self defense sometimes results in rubble. You think civilians can be valid targets if deemed important for the regime, like Iranian scientists. So what is your issue with these events? You have no point here unless you are saying Hezbollah and Israel are engaging in similar acts, in which case we can look at the scale and see Israel is acting out in wildly disproportionate ways.
However, if we look at how Iran engages with American aggression, the dynamic changes. But you never do that and only focus on Israel. So eh... Maybe we will get there eventually.
Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?
Here's your claim from before, in case you forgot it:
I just want to make sure this remains your position. That this truck bomb attack on a Jewish Community Center which killed 85 people was in your view a "measured and controlled retaliation" for purposes of defending Iran.
That's your position, right?
That creation of a lot of rubble does not necessarily mean that the rubble-creator has a "complete disregard for human life."
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
It's amazing to keep seeing this from people who hear Trump's bombastic bullshit and turn into Amelia Bedelia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sounds like a classic motte and bailey pivot to me.
For starters, please quote and link these explanations.
Do you agree that Iranian leadership also chants "death to Israel"?
Do you maintain that "Death to Israel" is similarly not a direct wish for harm against Israeli citizens?
Do you agree that Iranian leadership has directed attacks against Israeli civilians?
Given that they know how "death to America" is interpreted, why do you think they continue with "death to America"?
In your view, is the United States deliberately targeting Iranian civilians?
Do you deny that Iran has been directing and supporting Hezbollah?
Do you deny that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?
By who? The Iranian leadership? Are we supposing that they go in public, make a definitive statement of what 'Death to America' means, and every Iranian citizen knows to not take that statement seriously, and instead chant what they really mean. Which is to wish death on every American man woman and child, because Iranians are just subhuman and beastial like that and revel in suffering and death?
But the again, why would I bother quote, answer or link anything? None of the anti-Iran hysteria does so. Post after post. Kind of crazy.
In fact nigh all of those posts are just a routine list of arbitrary accusations and arbitrary benchmarks. Why would Iran funding Hezbollah be a reason to not like Iran? Funding proxies that can be called terrorists is practically an American geopolitical hobby. Is it OK to cause suffering, chaos and death to achieve your political goals so long as you are not called Hezbollah?
No. But I think that US officials have shown a great lack of care towards civilian deaths. Including Hegseth defunding the division focused on reducing civilian harm. And how they handled the school bombing doesn't inspire confidence. So yeah, I think if we allow all parties in the conflict some wiggle room regarding collateral damage, I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be mad against.
Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups. Why is funding proxies invalid when Iran does it, but not America or Israel?
If we apply the label fairly then I think they look like incompetent amateurs compared to Israel. As demonstrated in the footage of Gaza.
Pretty much, yes.
I'm not sure about Iranians in general, but Iranian leadership has consistently, chronically, and aggressively attacked Israeli civilians over the years. They've demonstrated what they mean by "Death to Israel."
If all they want is a change of government in Israel, why have they consistently, chronically, and aggressively attacked Israeli civilians?
It depends what you mean by "civilians." Israel has specifically targeted Iranian nuclear scientists who were reasonably believed to be part of Iran's nuclear program but who were not actually members of the Iranian military. In Gaza, Israel has unavoidably killed various civilians, but of course that's what happens when militants hide in civilian areas. You don't get immunity by ducking into a hospital or a mosque.
That being said, it doesn't really matter. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Israel has been pursuing a "Death to Gaza" policy and, as you claim "they [Iran's leadership] wish for the same thing to happen to Israel as has happened to Gaza." That's a very reasonable basis to believe that there is a great deal of risk from Iran possessing nuclear weapons. (Note that "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" have been Iranian slogans almost since the very beginning of the current regime in the 1970s.)
I'm not sure what your point is here. You seem to be denying that Iran exports terrorism.
It doesn't require any expertise to demonstrate that you are wrong. You don't seem to deny that Iran supports and directs Hezbollah or that Hezbollah regularly engages in terrorist activity. All you do is attempt to deflect from this reality with whataboutism. You are wrong there as well, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about Iran exporting terrorism.
The bottom line is that Iran's leadership has shown through their actions what its long-standing "Death to Israel" policy means in practice and it's reasonable to infer that Iran's leadership means basically the same thing with its "Death to America" policy.
I don't care much for proxy argumentation. Are you Israeli or jewish? Or otherwise care a lot about Israel? Because you don't mention America much in this post, but instead talk a lot about Israel. And to the extent that we were talking about 'Death to America' we are straying away from the topic. I only say this since you seem comfortable with this sort of 'hidden motive' argumentation.
Unless you want to get back on topic I'll consider the 'death to America' part of this discussion over. Iran has a very clean track record of dealing with America. Their responses have been predictable and measured. The wildest portion of their foreign policy was the Lebanon hostage crisis, but that predictably ended with the Iraq-Iran war. You have presented no evidence of Iran being irrational, overly aggressive or otherwise hostile without provocation in their dealings with America that would in any way lead one to believe that they want death to American citizens, rather than seeking the end of the American regime that is hostile to them and has caused untold suffering for millions in the region.
They haven't by any relative margin. The Israel Palestine conflict is a rather messy affair, where the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians by a wide margin. My rough count is around 2k Israelis dead to 60k Palestinians. How that translates to an overly aggressive Iran defies all reason.
By civilians I mean civilians, like the thousands of people Israel has killed in recent years. If Israel says it's not targeting civilians, but is at the same time leveling entire neighborhoods and killing a lot of them then I simply don't believe they have any relevant defense to offer when a suicide bomber blows themselves up in public somewhere in Israel. The rules of engagement are very clearly to pick targets of opportunity. To the Israelis that's leveling a hospital or an apartment complex to kill a single scientist. To Hezbollah it's a hotel where coalition forces hang out.
Did Israel nuke Gaza? No. So this great deal of risk obviously goes both ways. And since Israel has nukes, what should Iran do, given Israel has demonstrated by action just how dangerous they are. (I mean, note the difference, you are trying to infer through words the hostile motive of Israel when Israel has already done it in action.)
This is such a... Let's look at the sentence you quote: "Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups."
How can it seem like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups?
My point there otherwise was that the way you wrote was arrogant and annoying.
When we look at how Iran deals with America we can see that this is not a reasonable comparison. There was never a reason to assume that Israel and America were considered the same in any regard to begin with.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy argumentation." We are arguing over what is meant by "Death to America."
Are you saying that when Iran's leaders chant "Death to X," the meaning is different depending on whether "X" refers to Israel or the United States? Because if so, that defies all logic and common sense.
I'm not sure I understand this either. Israel has launched essentially zero direct attacks against regular Iranian civilians. Iran has (through proxies) launched numerous repeated attacks over the years. Are you denying this? Or are you saying that Iran's activities somehow are evidence of what "Death to Israel" means because Israel has been involved in wars in which a lot of Arabs have died?
I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. The Iranians have demonstrated what their "Death to Israel" policy actually means in practice. It's reasonable to use this as a basis to infer what is meant by their "Death to America" policy.
Here's what you said before. This is a direct quote from you:
I take it you now admit that the accusation that Iran has exported terrorism is (1) meaningful; and (2) accurate?
Ok, let's make sure I understand your position:
In your view, when Iran's leadership chants "Death to America," they mean something very different as to America than what they mean (as to Israel) when they chant "Death to Israel"?
Is that seriously your position?
That's not a direct quote from me. You cut it to pieces and out of context, again!
Before I engage with you quoting me again I want you to clarify this. You quoted me and said it looked like I was denying that Iran funds Hezbollah. But in that quote, you cut off the next part of the sentence that said that I was sure that they were funding Hezbollah.
How can it "seem" like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups in the same two sentence paragraph? I asked for clarification and you seem to have missed it. Are you misquoting me on purpose or was that an error?
By proxy argumentation I mean that we are talking about what Iran means by 'Death to America' yet you only give examples to what Iran is doing relating to Israel.
That's obviously the case, demonstrated by the difference in how Iran acts towards America and Iran.
That should really help you understand it. Iran proxies, whilst doing work with Iran, are not Iran. Hezbollah exists as an organization deeply involved with Lebanon and Palestine. Both of those countries have had civilians bombed by Israel. Hezbollah retaliations against Israel relate to those conflicts. Or are you denying that Israel has killed Palestinian and Lebanese civilians?(this is a joke, based on how obtuse and annoying your way of conversing is)
That's obviously Iran's position.
Either Iranian action is a barometer by which one can judge Iranian intentions or it is not. You said it was. Well, they don't treat Israel and American action the same. There you have it. But besides that, there's nothing illogical about wishing two of your enemies differing outcomes in defeat.
That's a lie. Here's your full post in all its glory:
There is NOTHING in here about Iran funding Hezbollah.
But your lie is even worse than that, because next you evaded my question and then misrepresented it.
Here's what I asked:
In response, you admitted that Iran has been funding Hezbollah but ignored the question of whether Iran has been directing Hezbollah, and then tried to change the subject:
Nonsense. I simply asked you a reasonable question, one which you evaded. Actually you evaded twice.
Once by dodging the question of whether Iran directs Hezbollah, and again by dodging the issue of whether Iran exports terrorism.
And it's obvious why you are being so evasive. Because you know perfectly well that (1) Iran does in fact export terrorism; and (2) the United States and Israel do not. To get around this problem, you are trying to draw a false equivalence. There must have been some time when either the United States or Israel or both gave support to some group which at some point engaged in some kind of terrorist act. So by (1) ignoring the fact that Iran directs Hezbollah; and (2) ignoring the fact that Iran specifically intends to export terrorism, you can pretend it's the same thing.
No, it's not obviously the case. What's far more likely is that Iran does not bully the US as it does with Israel because (1) America is much further away; (2) America does not have the same kind of hostile population on its borders which can be organized and recruited like Hezbollah; and (3) America is by far the world's most powerful country and bullies tend to choose weaker targets.
In any event, I do not engage with people who evade or misrepresent my position, something you have done both here and in another exchange. Accordingly, this discussion is concluded. Feel free to have the last word -- I will not be reading or responding.
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
Yeah we all know what “Death to America” means but the second Iran wants to mobilize American sympathy there’s a complicated explanation about how those words don’t mean what they appear to mean.
One imagines I would not get such sympathy if I were to say, “Death to hanikrummihundursvin”
You are not a crowd of angry folks who just had their friends and relatives blown to bits by an American freedom dispenser.
In America post 9/11, verbiage in the line of 'just glass the place' was brought up quite a bit by disgruntled Americans. If that had become a slogan of sorts I'm confident people would understand the difference between emotional expression of the public and official statements.
What if I said that Shakes needs a 'regime change'?
It's not as direct, but rhetoric like that has been recognized for what it is. Like when online games started banning people who asked others to 'Please seek Canadian healthcare'.
Well, suppose that when congress enters session; when there are official government rallies; etc., "Turn Iran to Glass!" is chanted. And suppose that this practice has been going on for 40 or 50 years. Would Iranians be justifiably concerned about American aggression?
There was the time a major-party Presidential candidate sang a "Bomb Iran" filk at a rally. The American voters rejected this rhetoric, but I think the Iranian voter would reject "Death to America" if they got the opportunity. The American establishment didn't reject it - McCain remained the Great White Hope of pro-establishment centrism until his death. Donald Trump spent most of his life as part of that establishment, and his recent behaviour re. Iran is strong (although by the nature of such things, not conclusive) evidence that he is fake-anti-establishment controlled opposition and not the turncoat determined to cleanse the Augean stables that his supporters like to think he is.
I'm pretty sure that hypothetical Iranian voters would reject the entire Iranian regime if they got the opportunity.
If you are claiming that "bomb Iran" has been a central slogan of American foreign policy for many years, I'm going to need proof of that. If you are claiming that there have been leaders who echoed such a slogan but weren't immediately drummed out of public life, I'll agree. And I'll ask "so what?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
America obviously poses a threat to Iran and nobody denies this. Denying the opposite, that Iran threatens America, is not sensible. It sometimes happens that two people hate each other for unfortunate, avoidable, and correct reasons.
When people bring up 'Iran chants death to America, therefor they are a threat' they are making a much more visceral and stupid argument than 'we have rational but unresolved geopolitical issues.'
The fundamental premise being that Iranians are insane in some way and therefor giving them a nuke will lead to them nuking America.
It's otherizing and hysteric and such statements in any other context leveraged against any other group would warrant supporting argumentation. So far that has been lacking.
But it's not only that, and you are putting forth a strawman. I'm sure the men who drove a truck bomb into Beirut and killed two hundred Americans knew exactly what 'Death to America' meant: killing Americans.
They're not insane, but they are not rational. They are religious fanatics who hate the west and want to kill every American they get their hands on. An enemy, by definition, is an other. No special intellectualizing required. It is you who are making apologetics.
For the same reason the geniuses behind 'Abolish the Police' engaged in epicycles to say it actually meant [Liberal Slop], you are doing the same. Surely the Kantian PhD scholars would come up with a clarifying slogan and instruct their people to communicate what they actually mean, right?
No, this is quokka reasoning: you cannot define away enemies who identify as enemies. That's not how the world works. At least respect them enough to believe that they say what they mean, and not fall for obvious lies.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure that Putin and Xi also say the Russian and Chinese equivalents of "death to America", but I don't worry about the possibility of a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike on the US.
India and Pakistan have attacked each other through proxies before, yet neither has launched a nuclear first strike on the other despite extreme levels of mutual hatred and the fact that both have nuclear weapons.
This is like saying you've never had any issues picking up pennies in front of a road roller.
I wish people would stop pretending there's no difference between these egomaniac dictators or near-dictators. Putin is a cold war veteran, Xi is a lifelong bureaucrat. Neither of them are islamic extremists.
Mao, however, repeatedly talked about how awesome a nuclear war would be- because China could absorb casualties and the west wouldn't, it meant communism would triumph. Didn't happen.
Mao also did the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which are a lot crazier than anything the Iranian mullahs have done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Actually not at all. It's not hard to find Chinese state broadcasts and nowhere does Xi say anything remotely close to death to America.
In fact the Chinese largely couldn't care less about America beyond the fact that we buy their shit and give them money for it.
I mean in private.
Of course claiming that a someone said something in private is completely unfalsifiable, but as a chinese, I can tell you that if you ask any chinese they would say you're out of your mind.
I agree. To be sure, it's conceivable that in a private moment of exasperation, a lot of world leaders have said something along the lines of "fuck America" or some such. But that's very different from chronic, public, pre-planned, organized "death to America" chants.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's your evidence for this? I mean, if you are "sure" that Xi says, in substance, "death to America" in private, there must be some evidence, right?
Indeed, China(and Russia) are notorious among their own people for having elites that prefer the west to their own hinterlands.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty skeptical of all this.
Please provide links and quotes showing:
(1) Three times in the last 25 years that Russian leadership has done the equivalent to chanting "death to America"
(2) Three times in the last 25 years that Chinese leadership has done the equivalent to chating "death to America"
(3) Three times in the last 25 years that India has attacked Pakistan through proxies in a manner equivalent to Hezbollah or Houthi attacks on Israel;
(4) Three times in the last 25 years that Pakistan has attacked India through proxies in a manner equivalent to Hezbollah or Houthi attacks on Israel.
Without even claiming any particular expertise in the conflict, doesn't Lashkar-e-Taiba claim a number of attacks that resemble those of Hamas or its associates? The 2008 Mumbai attacks killed 175 people and had a movie made about it I've heard of in the West (Hotel Mumbai, 2018), and the 2025 attack in Pahalgam was the trigger for the most recent direct India-Pakistan conflict. Those are probably the two most notable incidents, but there's not a shortage of others, or other proxies.
I'm less familiar with the details, but wouldn't be surprised if India has similar proxies, but I can't think of any offhand.
I don't know about the situation, but I would definitely say that:
(1) If Pakistan's leadership regularly chants "death to India" and attacks Indian civilians through proxies, India would be totally justified in perceiving a serious risk to India from Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons;
(2) Even without the "death to India" chants, the same holds.
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