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 -
Your president threatened to destroy the Iranian civilization overnight.
Most people who use language try to transport meaning rather than just fill the silence. Do you think Trump tries to transport meaning with language?
Generally, a threat is only effective if your opponent believes that you are willing to act upon it. If I threaten to cast a fireball at someone, that will weaken my negotiation position because they will assume that I do not have the ability to conjure fireballs. This will increase the probability that any other threat I subsequently make will be likewise idle.
Do you think that Trump was willing to follow through with his threat to end the Iranian civilization? If so, that would make him one of the most evil men in history, and you might as well claim that people in the 1940s had a Hitler Derangement Syndrome.
Or do you think he was bluffing? If so, do you think Iran bought his bluff? Why would they not recognize the bluff when you or I would probably concede that it was unlikely that he was going to nuke Iranian cities? How does the inability of the president to make credible threats help the US, strategically?
In general, what is the purpose of him setting deadlines and making threats on social media? Presumably he has a more direct channel to Iran. Iran certainly seems to be able to conduct their war and negotiate without making dramatic tweets and flip-flopping in public every few days. Is he intentionally trying to come across as unhinged and unreliable? Why?
Or take the Greenland debacle. Trump could have achieved the same outcome, i.e. learning that Denmark is unwilling to sell Greenland to him entirely through diplomatic channels without it ever making the news. What does he get out of it? Is the goal to seem like a buffoon who has no idea how the world works? Or was it net-positive for the purpose of signaling something to his constituents?
I don’t think ending the Iranian civilization (which I take him to mean destroy their energy infrastructure) is more evil than Iranian’s attempt to restrict the global energy infrastructure.
I also think destroying energy infrastructure is relatively commonplace in war and isn’t something particularly heinous. Yes, it would’ve caused significant harm to the Iranian people but that’s war. It is a legit military target which separates it from killing camps.
I truly don't see how you arrived at that interpretation. Why not interpret "ending the Iranian civilization" as ending the Iranian civilization?
Because the president was talking about blowing up their energy stations and bridges. It was context.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
President Trump is going to destroy Iranian civilization? Sounds serious sounds like Iran should surrender.
It is simultaneously the case that:
I think I’m supposed to cower at the subtext here that this would have made Trump “one of the most evil men in history”. I don’t care actually. This is war. Trump is going to destroy Iran if they don’t surrender? Sounds like they should surrender then.
This is honestly the “correct” attitude to have. Trump actually gains power from a hyperventilating body politic that believes he’s gone crazy. Since it works, it’s rational. So I can sit here calmly discussing it without having to condemn it. In order to make madmen theory work some people have to believe that you are mad. But I can also take a step up and look at a strategic view and say “this is correct”.
Every time a politician says Trump has gone mad and we need to stop him he’s really going to do it we can’t stop him he’s mad impeach impeach 25th 25th where’s Vance where’s JD Vance Chuck Schumer we need you oh my God we can’t stop him — well yeah you’re making Trump more powerful. Iran sees that btw. Trump could destroy them tomorrow and nobody is coming to save them. Well, maybe they shouldn’t negotiate I don’t know, maybe they should shake their heads about what is the world coming to, what happened to decency and common sense.
Have you seen Iran’s LEGO Epstein AI rap videos? They’re pretty catchy. What I mean is, this isn’t true at all the Iranians change their demands daily.
Look, in fairness, you’re right we don’t know what backchannels Trump could have used instead or whether he could have talked to Iran / Denmark privately. That’s why I’m not going to quarterback him. There’s obviously a logic at work here and it’s pretty easy to see it, although I want to avoid falling into the trap of plan-trusting when this is more like watching a lion in top shape hunt as his fancy strikes him.
Trump has achieved a lot of amazing successes and I think he’s smarter than me. So it’s correct to sit back and learn something. I think a problem on The Motte is that everyone is used to being the smartest guy in the room and assumes they don’t have much to learn from anybody. I mean this in general although it very obviously applies directly to Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, because it is the opinion of many in the Trump administration and in the Gulf States that a depopulated Iran is preferable to letting the IRGC have nuclear weapons. "Proportionality" is a courtesy not a moral precept.
The purpose of deploying that threat was to get the Iranians to the negotiation table. Think of it like a police officer shouting "stop or I'll shoot". And you know what, it worked.
Watching the same people who were screaming about the coming genocide a week ago flip to calling Trump a pussy/loser for failing to follow through has been a trip.
More options
Context Copy link
I think most people are just trying to manipulate other people with mouth noises rather than transport meaning.
Yes, but he is also trying to manipulate other people. But the likely meaning can often be teased out with effort; for instance, I was able to predict the actual meaning of his threat to close the Strait.
No. He would have done something, but not anything like that; no advantage in it for him.
It was not bluffing like poker, but chest-beating like primitive primate displays. It appears to have partially worked, getting them to the table but not getting them to yield on key points.
I can't know his inner thoughts, but I would suspect Trump thought (incorrectly) that Denmark would be more willing to sell Greenland if he made it public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link