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 -
Iran declares Strait of Hormuz completely open to commercial ships during Israel- Lebanon ceasefire, but US naval blockade stays in place
Still no significant movement on the maritime trackers. Ships are still grouped at the anchorages on both sides of the Strait. But Trump says Iran is working with the US to remove them. If Trump offers sanctions reliefs and ends the US blockade (which I doubt) in exchange for giving up their nuclear program and ceasing support for proxies against Israel, maybe this war could end quickly and we can return to pre-war status quo by the end of the year.
This is as close to a win-win situation as we can get. For Israel, there's a weaker defeated Iran in the region without means to develop nuclear weapons quickly, and for Iran, they get to survive and have access to sustenance funds. Trump can also claim some victory points for his base.
All of this is of course assuming Trump is being truthful and wants to end the war that he started. There's so much we don't understand or know behind the scenes.
From what I get this basically seems to have been mutual bluff calling and Iran keeps winning it. The Trump admin tried to pull away from ending Israel's war in Lebanon during the ceasefire so Iran just kept the strait closed and Trump finally pulled Bibi in line. Now Trump is saying the blockade will continue so Iran is going "nope, strait still closed then till you lift it" and yep, it still seems to be mostly closed.
Maybe but Iran giving up their enriched uranium doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. Even going out to the end of the year, the US obtaining it (any quantity) by any means is still <50%. Weirdly enough agree to surrender is higher at 70% by end of the year but that seems to be because it's agree to surrender (again, any amount), rather than actually surrendering it as it says with "An agreement by Iran to surrender its enriched uranium stockpile as a precondition of a more comprehensive peace process or deal will qualify, even if the agreement is not finalized or part of a formalized peace deal"" so it doesn't have to actually happen. So even something like "10% of uranium for sanctions relief" and then they never give the 10% could count.
Iran is hurt more by the strait being blockade than the U.S. is by it being closed. The question is can Trump home out politically.
How hurt is the Iranian leadership and army though? Being a dictatorship, Iran is a lot less vulnerable to the will of the people. So Trump is gambling that Americans will allow the war to continue despite an increased cost of living, while Iran only needs to worry if the people are dying in the streets.
Destroy all powerplants and they will be hurt.
And that's worth all the civilians who will die without access to electricity to you?
That implies that if a nation is reliant on fuel imports, their foe must allow the fuel to continue to flow during a conflict. Hell, taken to an extreme, if a country goes to war with a nation that provides them their electricity, the second country must continue to provide it to their enemy? Sounds... kind of absurd, at least to me.
I don't disagree. Blockades are a longstanding and recognized act of legitimate warfare, if always controversial (re: Turnip Winter). A nation is not obligated to permit the flow of goods into its enemy, although it should keep in mind what cutting off resources like, say, food will actually achieve when compared to the long term consequences of starving a population to death. Most people tend to not appreciate mass civilian death and suffering for little real strategic gain.
But what was being suggested was something entirely different in kind. The complete destruction of all power generation is total war logic against an enemy that has posed an until now unrealized economic threat that was clearly foreseeable and avoidable by not picking this fight in this way, with so little preparation, and managed to saturate US and Israeli air defenses with enough drones and missiles to cause, so far, a few dozen deaths and a bit over 8000 injuries, of varying degrees of severity. Oh, and a nuclear weapons program weeks away from a workable bomb for decades now. An existential threat deserving of existential tactics this is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lack of electricity makes life uncomfortable not impossible. Case in point - Serbia, Ukraine, Majority of the world before 1980.
Iran probably got electrified less than a century ago. For a civilization that proudly claim is 4 millennium old - they made do without electricity for 39 centuries, so I am not worried.
The only thing that will cause millions of deaths will be if they turn the lights off in hospital and water pumping stations. Those objects have backup generators and Iran has diesel.
Now they may have to work the fields with plows, but if they really want medieval theocracy in charge, I see no reason to have access to more advanced than middle age technology.
The pre-electrification comparison doesn't really work. Iran before widespread electricity had somewhere around 20-30 million people, mostly rural and agrarian, and it was a society built around that reality. Modern Iran has 90 million people in a heavily urbanized country whose infrastructure, agriculture, water systems, and supply chains are all built on the assumption of a functioning power grid. The question isn't whether humans can live without electricity in the abstract. It's whether you can remove it suddenly from a modern nation of 90 million without mass death, and the answer is pretty clearly no.
The backup generator argument also assumes an intact fuel supply chain, which in turn requires functional refineries, distribution networks, and so on. If you're actually destroying all power generation infrastructure in a country, those downstream dependencies don't survive either.
Also, why are you advocating for punishing a people who recently were killed in the tens of thousands for protesting their own regime for the actions of that regime? Is getting killed in the streets by the Basij for saying "I don't want this government" a secret signal for preferring a medieval theocracy?
For the same reasons we punished the Serbs for the sins of Milosevic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes of course. I don't wan't innocent Iranian civilians to die for no reason, but I care about them about as much as I care about ants.
The same way I and most normies don't care about millions of gazans dead either. I have far more important things to worry about, like video games and anime and convincing my waifu to let me buy more power tools and guns.
I don't know, 60% disapproval of Israel's actions would seem to indicate a majority actually do care about dead Gazans, or at least the scale of civilian deaths. But I'm more curious why you think the deaths of other humans are comparable to insects. Is it just proximity? Or is it something about who they are?
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