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 -
Deal reached to end Iran war
Details of the deal are not publicly available right now. However, Trump has authorised an end to the US naval blockade, and Iran has agreed to reopen the Strait.
Not surprisingly though, Israel continues to bomb Lebanon and refuses to cede lands seized in southern Lebanon.
But MORE surprisingly, Trump actually reprimanded Bibi.
So it seems we were lucky to return to the pre-war status quo, even Trump had to tepidly admit that he bit off more than he can chew and Iran's regional dominance is not going anywhere.
Are we still doing this? Which is it, 39th time? Are Pakistanis fabricating this again? I understand that Trump really, really wants a deal with Iran, he is generally an enjoyer of Deals (wrote a whole book on that, I recall) and more immediately there's the issue of midterms. But Trump has kept announcing this deal, and every damn time it fell through, sometimes with Iranians flat out denying that they even were in contact with the US. I am skeptical about this one too.
The problem is that a) Iran demands for Israel to be subject to the Lebanon-specific terms of the deal, which is not in Trump's authority to guarantee even if he were to agree, nor is it something we can expect of Witkoff and Kushner to approve of, and b) Iran prefers the (painful) stalemate situation to a quick deal that'll result in them being decapitated half a year or a year later, so they will be insisting on a deal that allows them to deter further aggression long-term, which likely means at least the removal of US bases in the region and preserving uranium to keep threatening (even if not implementing) nuclearization.
The whole American posture seems to be premised on expectation that they'll blink, psychologically break and act like an irrational actor. But they have been supremely, coldly rational, modulo some misfires. Why would that change? I mean, even critics of the operation acknowledge that "…Iran should have been dealt with eventually". Do you think they don't get the gravity of the American bipartisan consensus that they're a nuisance to be "dealt with"? There was a more reasonable idea of repeatedly killing every new leader, until the US lands on either a pliant one (Delcy Rodríguez playbook) or one dumb/cowardly enough to reach for a vacuous deal. For some reason – maybe their successful proof of the capability to wreck GCC oil and gas infrastructure, maybe their improved opsec, maybe Pentagon's concern about exhaustion of the munitions stockpile, maybe the vague guess that this still isn't a great plan, I don't know – it was abandoned. So you're stuck with rational Iranians who know they have no choice but to stall and demand a deal which leaves them in a stronger position than ever conceived of before the war. Understandably, the US would rather not accept such terms.
So I'm calling BS on this deal too. Someone will have to give before any real deals can be made.
It's a funny meta-situation that all weekend I saw the deal announcement in the news, and thought it was notable that there was no post about it in the CWR, but at the same time I couldn't come up with anything all that creative to say beyond "here we go again.jpeg"
I think it's notable that Trump has no reduced the credibility of statements of foreign policy from POTUS to the point where we all agree collectively that they aren't worth discussion. It's impossible to imagine a world where Obama or Dubya or Clinton made these kinds of empty threats and promises that went nowhere at all. "Bush Lied, People Died" was a popular protest T Shirt in the oughts; "Trump Lies, nothing in particular happens" would be the modern equivalent. Presidents lied to us throughout my life, obviously, but the lies were things like "we are building a strong stable Afghan democracy" which were backed up by significant action and time wasting. The statement is untrue, but its implications cannot be ignored. The
At the same time, I'm being assured by Top Men in the plan truster crowd that the whole deal is a feint and Trump is actually planning to continue the war. Which makes me unspeakably sad as an American. We used to understand why December 7th was a day which will live in infamy, now we brag about doing worse.
I don't think it's good that the US government, directly through the president and cabinet secretaries and not through a sacrificial undersecretary of yadayadayada, regularly lies to us about what's going on. I'm starting to get very tinfoil hat about the various looney tunes accidents that are supposed to have occurred during the Iran operation. I just don't come anywhere close to believing things said directly by the president, SecState, SecWar; even directionally or legally they aren't anywhere close to true.
What would be the point? Americans, including Trump's strongest soldiers, don't trust him when he talks about peace, why would the Iranians? If the Iranans don't trust him, what tactical advantage can be gained from feigning peace?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link