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 -
This is a wild statement with some hefty logical problems you might want to offer some evidence to counteract.
This seems highly in line with conventional wisdom and official government findings. What is supposed to be controversial, the "independently" part?!
As noted in a different reply, the obvious logic would be higher oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz closure creating higher oil prices for Russia and an impetus to ease sanctions on Russian oil, as indeed the US has done. Mostly joking, but I was also mostly joking a couple months ago (IRL, not on here) when I speculated that a hilarious consequence of the Iran war would probably be the US getting rid of sanctions on Russian oil. That US resources are tied up in Iran, leaving less logistic and budget room to support Ukraine, is icing on the cake, not to mention the seeming erosion of US face and soft power.
So absolutely anything that adjusts the price of oil is proof positive of Russian stoogery?
That should be a long list!
That's not what I am claiming at all. I am merely pointing out the comedy that there were few choices that would have simultaneously been so beneficial for Russia and so detrimental for the US and Europe. (Perhaps intervening on Ukraine's behalf could be considered more beneficial to Russia, but having that conflict settled wouls come with at least some Western benefits.)
My personal view is simply that Trump 2 is an extraordinarily incompetent administration.
If this is so detrimental to Europe and obviously incompetent, why is Kier Starmer easing the same sanctions?
The defunct Tories pounce:
Easing the sanctions is not the part that is so harmful to US/European interests; the conditions creating the need to ease the sanctions, i.e., the US-Iran war, are the part that is harmful to Western interests. Easing the sanctions is an understandable attempt to lessen the pain created by the Iran military action that has gone on far longer than planned and come with drastically larger consequences than planned.
The incompetent part is Trump's choice to embark on the Iranian adventure in the first place. I'm not really qualified to judge the competence of the operation itself, but it seems to me like Trump probably did not get great or blunt enough advice on this front.
Once again, your entire theory is based on a lot of wild assumptions using as evidence things you can't possibly know (i.e. how long the Iran war was "planned", which is not in any way how military operations planning works.) You assume that Trump is incompetent because you think the timeline was different to what has happened, which you know because of your seat on the National Security Council, presumably? Assuming Trump wasn't lying that time? Assuming whatever you based this on was reported accurately and without bias, as any article about Trump always is?
I believe that the Iran war was incompetently conceived because of how badly it has gone!
How badly has it gone? The US has decimated their leadership, owns their skies, is blockading their sea access, taken single-digit casualties and the best they can do is raise insurance rates on shipping and the price of oil a dollar a gallon. I don't know your background in military history, but that is not traditionally the sort of outcome seen as a loss.
At the same time, there has been a major realignment of the Sunni nations against Iran and toward rapprochement with Israel and the US. This has been partially long in the works, partially due to Trump's specific policies, and partly due to Iran bombing everyone in the middle east in their hissy fit over not being able to do shit against the US air force. Even if the Iran campaign isn't decisive, this realignment might be the biggest setback Iran has experienced in their modern foreign policy. The Shia crescent is broken. And somehow, people keep telling me how badly Trump is doing. Enlighten me!
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