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?
The US can pack up and go home if they offer Iran genuine compensation. We can take off sanctions, pay back the damage we caused, give them loans, open up our markets to their saffron and other products, allow a certain number of scholarships for their students… there are hundreds of creative solutions we can devise that will convince them to open up the strait. The problem is, per Joe Kent, the Israelis needs to be “reigned in”. Right now, America can’t actually be trusted, because of the free reign that Israel has over Trump. So the compensation we provide has to involve genuine “costly signals” of our good faith. So the deal could include reducing the extent of our relationship with Israel, signing a real treaty with Iran, etc. Is any of this likely under Trump? No, I don’t think it’s likely at all, because of his pride. But getting the strait opened isn’t some Herculean task.
They are obtaining compensation and deterrence against a country that wants to destroy their civilization, kill all of their leaders, kill all their negotiators, kill all of their scientists, and thinks it’s okay to kill 100 students and then pretend it was Iran that did it. They are in a fight against a force that represents, like, a Disney villian rendition of pure evil as personified by Trump. At this point he is like the personification of greed, corruption, and the shadowy underworld (Epstein). And most of the world sees this, which is why they aren’t helping America but actually doing what they can to obstruct their efforts (closing down airspace etc)
Or we could nuke them. It is cheaper. I much prefer Iran to have 2 choices - submission or destruction and let them choose. Closing of the strait means Iran has to be broken to a state where they are incapable and not unwilling to do that.
Starting an aggressive war and then going nuclear is in my opinion a terrible idea. We've kept the nuclear genie in the bottle. Setting it free for marginal gain is a horrible idea. And I'm pretty sure nuking Tehran, might end up with Trump in the Hague and would be much more unpopular then a ground invasion. So why not send in the Marines rather then killing 10 million men women and children and still not getting the straight open.
More options
Context Copy link
I do not think nuking them will be cheaper than compensating them.
Wiping out Tehran will not significantly reduce Iranian capabilities to attack ships to in the strait. Rural Afghanistan could interdict passage on the strait if they had the coasts. So you would need to make a few hundred kilometers of coastline uninhabitable up to a few dozen kilometers inland. That does not sound cheap even in direct costs.
And the long term consequences would make W's adventures look like a walk in the park. Consider Denmark. As far as I know, they do not have nukes not because nukes are beyond their reach (their GDP is larger than Iran's), but because for them nukes would be a solution looking for a problem, so far. In a world where Trump has just glassed Iran, they would feel that they would get the same choice really soon. Countries are very willing to spend more than ten percent of their GDP on their own Trident program if they feel that the alternative is their capital getting nuked by Trump.
North Korea has some kinds of nukes and is the world's rank #139 by GDP. Within a decade, every country from Albania to Zambia might start nuclear tests. Or they form defensive pacts with saner countries against US attacks. Probably North Korea could make a killing just by selling their tech.
Yes it will. You can fly drones 24/7 over the areas that shoot anything that breaths and moves.
The nuking was in response to the equally absurd suggestion to bribe them. It is a stupid war, but once started Iran has to be broken. Personally I will start with attacking their oil wells. Once they start burning they will change their tune fast.
You could do that without Nuking Tehran.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You sure could nuke them. In fact, as a non-Iranian, I wouldn't mind seeing this. It is a very flashy way to admit (an unnecessary) conventional defeat and speed up nuclear proliferation and the collapse of your world-system.
The problem is that Trump, for all his faults, doesn't really want to nuke anyone. And even if he could credibly threaten to nuke – the current Iranian leader had barely survived an attack that had wiped out his family. He's well aware the US and Israel have the means to kill with impunity. Do you seriously think more naked intimidation will work? Do you have no theory of mind for men?
More options
Context Copy link
Would you say the Russians were foolish to not start nuking the Ukrainians after they failed to achieve total victory in the first month?
Russia's stated goal is to conquer Ukraine, and nuking them would kind of be a detriment to that. The US is no worse off if the entire Iran is a uninhabitable radioactive wasteland and 100 million iranians are dead. But it's certainly troublesome for Russia if all the Ukrainians are dead.
Well, Putin could have nuked Kiev and announced that he would continue to nuke one city every 24 hours until unconditional surrender. The destruction might not have been so different from a few years of conventional warfare. He did not do so because otherwise every one of his neighbors would have started nuclear programs asap, and because it seems entirely possible that the Ukrainian army would have been willing to fight him in the ruins of their cities.
Likewise, for the US, the Iran problem would be over. Instead they would have the problem that every other country in the world (excepting Israel, perhaps) would consider them genocidal maniacs on a scale dwarfing Hitler, Stalin and Mao together. Every non-nuclear country would either try to get nukes or enter defensive alliances with saner countries.
It wouldn’t necessarily need to be that bloody. There are plenty of ways to use nuclear weapons on Iran or Ukraine that would be highly effective and cause minimal civilian casualties.
There are a quite a few nuclear powers, and quite a few have been fighting conventional wars which were very frustrating for them.
If Putin could have won Ukraine in his original timeframe by launching a few small tactical nukes, or Nethanyahu could have installed the Shah by dropping a few tactical warheads on the IRGC, or if the Soviets could have won Afghanistan in a similar way, it seems strange why nobody did so.
I view tactical nukes as similar to chemical and biological weapons. If they were 'I win' buttons, similar to what gunpowder became in Europe, their use would be widespread. Instead, they are long on horror but short on effectiveness.
There is some overlap between the smallest nukes and the largest conventional bombs, and the MOAB and friends are very much niche. If a few tens of kilotons TNT would have changed the Iran war, the US air force could have just delivered that using conventional explosives.
The other thing is that on the scale of hand grenades to city-glassers, chemical vs nuclear energy storage is the Schelling fence. Normalizing the use of tactical nukes will also normalize the use of larger nukes.
It’s a norm that evolved gradually. For most of the forties and fifties it was assumed that nukes were going to become commonplace in combat, and it would only be worrying if superpowers used them against each other.
Then Truman passed on using them in Korea, and Eisenhower passed on using them them to bail out the French at Dien Bien Phu. That began to solidify that these were really only special occasion devices, not just something you use because not doing it would be a pain in the ass.
Once you get to the Nixon administration, it’s starting to get set in stone. The Nixon admin considers using them in Vietnam, but determines the international blowback would be too severe.
Now, we’re getting close to Dune levels of nuclear taboo, where using them in any context would be highly controversial.
They aren’t necessarily an instant win button, but in both Ukraine and Iran they would be extremely useful. Iran’s nuclear facilities and underground missile bases would be pretty easy to dismantle with nuclear ground bursts. In Ukraine, every time the Russians had to spend nine months besieging an empty town like Bahkmut or Kramantorsk, they could have just dropped a 380kt warhead on it and been done in a week (mostly waiting for the fallout to settle).
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 think it's "reined it" correctly.
I think "reigned in" might have reached status of being a correct version of the phrase due to popular use, with an invented-etymological explanation being that it's like a king ordering someone to pull back. It's like how "could" now means the same thing as "couldn't" when part of the phrase "could care less," due to how people have been confusing the terms (or rather, it seems that people have made up the explanation that "could care less" is a reference to the fact that they care so little that it's less than anyone or anything - they "could care less [than some arbitrary X, and they do indeed do what they could]"). Or like how "literally" now means "emphatically" or "severely" in some contexts.
None of those things you listed are correct. Popular use does not make something correct, it means that a lot of people speak the language badly because they don't care enough to learn.
More options
Context Copy link
"'Good' could mean 'bad' actually," said Chad with a smirk, as he pulled a Coors from the cooler and cracked it open.
"Prescriptivists are too rigid in their etymology."
Good does mean bad though, and has done since Michael Jackson.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Point taken, but the difference is that as opposed to 'could care less' and 'literally' the phrase 'to reign in' makes no grammatical sense.
On a related note, the case of lose vs loose is similar.
"Could care less" and misuse of "literally" also make no grammatical sense. The former is especially egregious, as it means almost nothing as stated. Knowing that someone could care less only tells me that he cares a nonzero amount, but it could be anywhere from "almost completely unimportant" to "the most important thing in his life".
“I could care less” annoys the crap out of me, literally. Literal human waste is being excreted due to my annoyance.
I do find it pretty funny though. “I could care less about your feelings!” almost feels triumphant, like “I could care less, but I don’t care enough to care less!” It’s a joke a competent comedian could probably spin into something hilarious. I don’t love the expression though, both because it confuses so many people and because it’s just a strange way to say “I don’t care.” Just say that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Anon, I...
In this case, the phrase 'to reign Israelis in' makes no grammatical sense.
Of course it makes grammatical sense. You've got a verb acting on an object and a preposition. There's plenty of verbs that work this way ("to butter Israelis up"). The question of whether you can use "reign" in this way is one of semantics, not grammar.
Hold up. The phrase "to butter someone up" is in the dictionary and has a definition. On the other hand, "to reign the Israelis in" means "to rule Israelis in". How the heck do you rule someone in?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Edward the VIII abdicated to reign in his own family instead.
I like a grammatical challenge.
In this case, the phrase 'to reign Israelis in' makes no grammatical sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is correct. "Reined in" as one would control a horse.
I reign over my horse with its reins.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, which is the same reason why people usually mean 'free rein' when they speak of 'free reign'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Best to just go with "rained in".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Joe Kent is listening to Candace Owens segments about how Charlie Kirk was murdered by Israel and Macron’s wife is a man.
Kirk was killed with an explosive, not a bullet, and the place where it was made was blown up within weeks, killing the witnesses who made it.
This is a strange reply to me so I politely assume you’re making some kind of joke or reference I’m not familiar with. But on the chance you’re not I want to say that this is not true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they killing tens of thousands of their own civilians a couple months ago due to civil unrest? Epstein obsession is also kinda hysterical. I've got no problem with Epstein going to prison but he was a elite whoremonger he wasn't sacrificing people to Satan.
I'm reluctant to keep accepting this claim at face value. Not that I would bet against it, were it put up on Polymarket with a resolver that seemed authoritative enough, but there are at least two complications:
(1) the possibility that it is an outright lie or exaggeration, because the claims are ultimately sourced to bodies who have no particular commitment to speaking the truth to the general public (US or Israeli intelligence? Iranian opposition?)
(2) the possibility that it is technically true but missing some nuance that would significantly change the interpretation. During the height of the uprising being suppressed, I saw some videos circulating (of course themselves of questionable provenance) that purported to depict opposition-aligned fire teams using automatic weapons at least somewhat competently. If the reality of the uprising earlier this year is that the US and Israel had prepared and equipped a mass armed uprising, similar perhaps to the 2014 Donbass rebellion, which was soundly defeated because the government response was more competent than anticipated, does "killed tens of thousands of their own [citizens]" still have the same ring?
We don't normally talk about Ukraine in terms of "killed thousands of their own civilians" in that context (though, naturally, the Russians do). If the US had a Chinese-sponsored uprising that involved tens of thousands of people attempting to storm government buildings and engage in shootouts with authorities, would it being suppressed with a significant number of those involved winding up dead excuse the subsequent casualties of a reckless Chinese bombing campaign?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link