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 -
The direct impetus for the air strikes was obviously the Iranian protests and the slaughter of thousands of protestors weeks before. Having the government of Iran be replaced by protestors who owe the success of their revolution to U.S. airstrikes is presumably a best-case outcome for the U.S. (and for Iranians), but Trump has varied between explicitly calling for regime change and minimalist goals regarding further destroying their nuclear program, probably in large part so that he can declare victory regardless of how things turn out.
When the protests were still ongoing Trump was supposedly hours from ordering air strikes against Iranian police/etc. to support the protestors but was talked down, supposedly in part by Netanyahu fearing retaliation before Israel was prepared for it. There was a lot of talk at the time about how this was a betrayal of the protestors, who he urged to take over the institutions and implied U.S. support but then didn't deliver while they were slaughtered. Meanwhile U.S. assets were moved into the region to support a better-prepared attack. By the time U.S. assets were in place the protests had been suppressed but Trump went ahead with the attack anyway. Since the attack both Trump and Reza Pahlavi have been explicitly urging the protestors to wait and it is unclear if Trump believes revolution is now futile, if he wants to do more work to weaken the regime before calling for protests to resume, or if he wants to keep his options open between some sort of agreement and attempting regime change.
These protestors were armed by the US and Israel. It was an armed insurrection backed by an enemy state. Iran had every reason to shut if down and it is far better to shut it down than turn into Syria. The casualty numbers are sold to us by the same people who lied about every other regime change war.
I'm skeptical of this. Is there any source for this claim?
From the perspective of regime survival, I would agree -- regardless of whether the protestors were backed by an enemy state. If you are trying to argue that Iran's actions -- gunning down and executing protestors -- were morally justified, then I would have to disagree.
As much as you would like to ignore the context, the reality is that Iran has been relentlessly and aggressively making proxy war on Israel, and to a lesser extent the US, for decades now. For example by bombing a Jewish community center in Argentina. I'm skeptical that the US and Israel have been arming protestors, but even if they had, it would certainly be morally justified based on Iran's behavior. And Iran's leadership has no moral basis to oppose it.
Probably the most important piece of context is that Iran has always had -- and still has -- the option of an uneasy peace, such as what exists between Israel and Egypt.
The US attacked Iran in 1941 and then overthrew the government in 1953. In the 1980s it paid Iraq to invade Iran which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Since then the US has invaded a neighbouring country three times and launched to more wars in the past year against Iran. Israel helped jihadists take over Syria, a country that has friendly relations with Iran. The US and Israel has bombed Iranian embassies, flooded Iran with migrants and heroin, sanctioned Iran, shot down an Iranian airliner, assassinated plenty of Iranians and openly called for overthrowing the Iranian government.
This isn't Iran fighting a proxy war, this is Iran helping its neighbours in a justified way.
Iran wanted peace in 2001. The US refused it. The Iranians have tried to negotiate, and the US has murdered negotiators.
I'm skeptical of these claims as well.
Please provide backup for your claims that (1) the protestors in Iran were armed by the US and Israel; (2) the US attacked Iran in 1941 and overthrew the government in 1953; (3) the US paid Iraq to invade Iran; and (4) Iran wanted peace in 2001 and the US refused it.
Ok, so in your view, when Iran bombed a Jewish community center in Argentina, killing and injuring hundreds of people that was "Iran helping its neighbors in a justified way." Do I understand you correctly?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/22/us/politics/iran-israel-trump-netanyahu-mossad.html
Trump admitted he gave weapons to protestors:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-irans-claim-that-protesters-were-us-armed
Admittedly the war was more of a British thing at first but the US was clearly involved in the subsequent occupation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The US overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed a brutal dictator.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states
Netanyahu and the neocons have been pushing hard for war against Iran. US politicians talk openly about overthrowing Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations_during_the_George_W._Bush_administration#State_of_Iran-U.S._relations_in_January_2001
Iran was warming up to the west after 9/11
One bombing in the 80s fundamentally doesn't matter that much when millions have died in the middle east.
Assuming this is correct, I take it you are unable to support your claim that Israel armed the protestors?
Ok, so you admit that you are unable to support your claim that the US attacked Iran in 1941?
Umm, what's your evidence that the US paid Iraq to attack Iran? I don't even see any hearsay on that subject in the article you link to.
Ok, just to be clear, your evidence that "Iran wanted peace in 2001. The US refused it." is your own (unsupported) claim that "Iran was warming up to the west after 9/11"?
Maybe it matters a little, maybe it matters a lot. But part of your Gish Gallop included this claim:
I'm just asking if this includes Iran's attack on the Jewish community center in Argentina. It's a very simple yes or no question. Why won't you answer it?
I like how you completely glaze over the definitive evidence for the '53 coup, which is what actually matters here.
No, he posted the evidence right below. Are you blind?
You're the one Gish Galloping by demanding infinite evidence and then refusing to budge an inch when said evidence is provided.
You need to prove that Iran did it, to start. But once again, he did answer it:
Again, do you have faulty vision? Do you suffer from severe brain damage? Is your IQ below the level of legal retardation? Are you suffering from severe inbreeding? Are you just trolling?
Banned for two days. If you can't argue with someone without slinging insults like this, walk away.
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
More options
Context Copy link