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 -
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?
Why would I address that? If he wants to make an argument based on something with a factual basis, he's free to do so. But the first step is to figure out which facts actually have a basis and which are just the fantasies of Jew-haters.
Perhaps I missed something. Kindly summarize the evidence that "Iran wanted peace in 2001. The US refused it."
Umm, did he answer it was a "yes" or a "no"? Apparently my eyes are rolling so much from his Gish Gallop that I missed something.
So which is it: Yes or no?
Also, please summarize the evidence that the US paid Iraq to attack Iran. Please provide links and quotes.
Also, please summarize the evidence that Israel armed the protestors in Iran. Please provide links and quotes.
Failing that, please admit that these claims are baseless.
Let's see if I have this straight: (1) A (likely) Jew hater makes a string of baseless claims; (2) I politely ask for evidence in response to the Gish Gallop; (3) this polite request is a demand for "infinite evidence; therefore (4) the polite request is a Gish Gallop.
Do I understand your argument correctly?
Oh, by the way I have another question for you: Do you dislike Jewish people?
You need to stop this repeated bulverism. I don't even think you're wrong that most people stanning for Iran are motivated by Jew-hatred, but it's still irrelevant to the object-level discussion, and repeatedly asking people "By the way, do you hate Jews?" is not actually productive. Your entire argumentative style is obnoxious and calibrated to snark and antagonism. The purpose of discussions here is not to score points and "win" even if many people forget that.
Since you've blocked me, you won't be able to read this, so you're getting a 1-day ban to get your attention because we've told you several times now to stop doing this. Your bans will increase in length if you continue ignoring mod warnings.
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