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 -
This is silly. If you're buying this then I have a bridge to sell uou.
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."
It reads like I said it was about as measured and controlled as Israeli actions. Maybe you missed that part of my reply? Here, let me highlight it for you:
Here you go. I'd rank that attack as being pretty bad as a representative of how Iran handles things with regards to America. Given that this was a retaliation against Israel. A better example for how they deal with America would be their response to Operation Midnight Hammer. Where they gave advanced warning. Demonstrating capability, rather than signaling intent or want for war.
But as a response to Israel, as I've told you numerous times already, that conflict is very messy. Israel has already dictated the rules of engagement and Iran plays by those rules when defending itself and its interests. Conflating Iran's dealings with America and Israel is not valid, and you should stop trying.
Hopefully that clarifies my position on the topic for you. I'd implore you to read more than one sentence at a time. It gives a better overall picture and minimizes confusion on your half, and the need to reiterate everything on mine.
Then what is your issue with Iran retaliations against Israel? Please try to form a coherent standard that can apply to both Israel and Iran. I can accept a standard that says both parties have been reckless and bad, or that they are both playing by the same ruleset.
There are two issues. First, Iran intentionally targets ordinary civilians while Israel does not. But more importantly, Iran is the bully in this situation. It could easily have an uneasy peace with Israel as is the case with Egypt and Jordan but it chooses to relentlessly stir the pot.
I'm pretty sure I missed nothing. Rather, I asked you a very simple yes or no question, and you evaded it with whataboutism.
Although our discussion is about to end, I will summarize it for any lurkers.
(1) You said the following:
(2) I asked if you believed Iran's terrorist attack on the Jewish Community Center in Argentina (which killed 85 innocent people) counted as "measured and controlled" "retaliation" to "defend" Iran.
(3) You evaded the question, instead trying to change the topic to a discussion of Israel's supposed bad deeds.
In any event, I do not engage with people who evade or misrepresent, which 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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link