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?
Shakes starts gesticulating wildly
Donald Trump is successfully reordering the entire planet around a new model of American interests. This will be so obvious in due time that I expect it will be totally unremarkable, we will all move on to debating woke lasik for dolphins, or something. Especially now that the novelty has worn off and gas has stabilized at a buck higher than it was before and nothing much else has happened, it becomes harder to construct a reality where Iran is winning.
Basically everything happening now is within the risk tolerances predicted by American military strategists, and America is on the cusp of a very important peace.
Democrats are against this of course but it’s not even necessarily for a grand particular reason. They’re against Trump and it’s rational for them to oppose anything that increases his power and prestige. But I wouldn’t then drill that down further into a debate about whether they have a genuinely good reason to oppose the war or are anti-American as such in some way etc. It’s more the case that they have no power to do anything to stop Trump, after ten years of failed theories about how to stop Trump, and they are rather coasting toward the midterms and hoping by opposing Trump on this issue they can pick up another part of a coalition to acquire a House majority.
In a strange way the anti-war side is primarily the right wing. It’s on the right that these debates are happening most loudly and openly. It’s the people who feel betrayed by Trump who are the most visible faces and names. In this respect I guess opposition comes down to two main factions: people who oppose most war in general and people who oppose this war in particular (probably because of Israel).
Care to enlighten me how this will turn out in USA favor? I am pro trump, but it is hard to believe he is playing 4d chess, and he is too much of a coward to finish what needs to be done with the needed ruthlessness.
Before Trump went to war with Iran he secured Venezuela for their oil.
In the middle of the war he secured an alliance with Indonesia. America now controls Panama, Malacca, and Taiwan and is in the process of controlling Hormuz. The world’s great supply chain chokepoints.
These are not isolated events but obviously part of a greater vision. Tariffs and manufacturing and industrial policy are all related. Im not even interpolating any meaning, this is all contained within November’s National Security Strategy published by the White House.
The Middle East is now coming into a framework governed by the Abraham Accords, where Israel is no longer a pariah state and major players abandon funding terrorism for a stable security framework. Iran is the only power that has not essentially signed on to this deal. It is being reduced so that it will either eventually accept the new terms of the Middle East, or be functionally unable to oppose them anyways.
This is all more or less contained in specific military goals such as destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity and their ability to fund terrorist militias. Which the US is now accomplishing.
The theory that this is not progressing in America’s favor relies, on this point, solely on Iran’s threats over the straits. Which America is now blockading. The price of oil has stabilized and instead of totally escalating over Iran Trump is choosing to negotiate to see if they will accept terms. The might not, but clearly the theory that America is losing and will cut its losses is falsified already by the fact that America hasn’t surrendered yet. (Maybe the terms the Iranians imposed are so overwhelmingly embarrassing that even Trump can’t surrender to them. Hard to imagine how American military planners weren’t aware that Iran would try to close the straits when this was the central fact of American war planning with Iran for 50 years. But I’m sure we can invent some explanation about how Donald Trump has no plan or vision despite all evidence to the contrary.)
America is reshaping the world on its terms and Iran is a minor conflict in that bigger picture. We have basically triumphed over Iran militarily already, and the only question left is how to manage their surrender.
Not quite as direct but Argentina is getting interesting. Thiel has moved there for 2 months. Milei was just parting in Israel and secured some tech packages/funding. The country isn’t their yet, but it’s the long-term outpost of a maga-Israel S America hub.
"Zionists preparing to flee to Argentina" seems to be one of those instances of history rhyming.
Ouch. Someone hand them an ice pack. Seriously, funniest comment I have read on the internet in days.
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