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 -
What does the anti-war side in the US want in the Iran conflict? I'm woefully ignorant on this point of view, so I'm wondering if I can get some steelmans here.
The special military operation has not necessarily turned in the US's favor. And I understand why a majority of people were against getting into this absolute mess in the first place. But now that this mess has happened, it doesn't seem so easy to just pack up and go home. Assuming that the US passed a war powers vote, or otherwise just decided just to drop everything and go home, what next? It's a total capitulation, and to me it seems braindead obvious that Iran isn't going to stop harassing and extorting nearby shipping. I mean, what have they got to lose, meanwhile the more they extort the more money they get. So it seems like the only way that the shipment of oil can return to a normal state is if Iran is backed into a corner and is forced to stop what they are doing.
So I don't really understand the point of view of the anti-war side, such as the Democrat establishment
If their vote actually succeeded wouldn't this be pretty much the worst possible outcome? Iran commits piracy and extortion and the rest of the word twiddles their thumbs and just lets Iran do it? I can see a few hypotheses, but none of them seem to be a principled anti-war stance:
I'm sure I'm missing something here. What are the strongest ideas that make the anti-war side's case in terms of what should be done about the situation?
So, your offer is to spend more money and resources (and potentially American lives) to get us close to the status quo antebellum?
I don't see how it is hard to think that the US just shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, and should have kept Israel on a leash and told them to play nice. But having gotten ourselves into this mess, it is only a good idea to stay in it if we have both clear goals for the political outcome we want, and a realistic path to achieving that. Do we have either of those things?
It seems like the Trump administration is holding out for nuclear concessions, but are they going to get them for a cost that is acceptable to American voters? I suppose we shall see.
It seems to me that if we take it as a given that we are now committed - that this war must continue being prosecuted as a matter of national honor and interest - then we should expect resignations from the senior leadership. Obviously we won't get them, but executive discretion and impunity grows with every year, and rewarding unilateral ineptitude with uncritical support is only going to further worsen it.
More options
Context Copy link
The only way to return to the status quo antebellum is if America surrenders and rebuilds everything we destroyed. The Iranian government has very little ability left to project force in the region anymore, what little they have left is rapidly dwindling.
If nothing else, I admire your contrarianism. Most 'contrarians' come here to have other 'contrarians' affirm their views and agree with them. At least the graph of tankers flocking to America this week was a point in your favor.
In that case...haven't we won already? Why do we need to stay? Couldn't we just leave and Iran won't be able to project power in the strait, or bomb Israel, or whatever else? Can you make concrete predictions about when the US military can pull out given that we've destroyed their military, their leaders and their ability to project power?
Or consider also that dollarization is up:
https://x.com/joumannatv/status/2047159185016848596?s=46
One the one hand we will never leave because American force is stabilizing the Middle East. Pulling out of the Gulf would be like Rome pulling out of Gaul.
On the other hand, to what I suppose you mean about the war specifically:
It will probably last a few more weeks to a few months. This depends on whether Iran wants it the easy way or the medium way. The easy way is Iran surrenders and we wrap things up. The medium way is they drag it out and we continue our blockade. (The hard way is bridge and power plant day, which I imagine Trump won’t commit to at this point unless Iran does something egregious.)
If this war is still going on a year from now it’s because it becomes a proxy war involving Russia and China. I give this extremely low odds because continuation of the war hurts them more than it hurts us. (Russia’s war effort will collapse if they don’t have Irania drones and China will feel the energy squeeze much more acutely than we will.)
In a way it’s like a medieval siege. It could last shorter or longer, we could assault the walls again or keep starving them out, we could dig under the walls or start lobbing stones. But there is no relief force coming to lift the siege. Iran is not going to materialize a brilliant counterattack when they are starving behind the walls.
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