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.
So nobody knows what really happened, but at least we're having fun.
Does anybody else remember our discussions from a few months ago? Because what's been reported so far looks nothing like what many confidently predicted back then. Iran closing the strait would lead to massive energy spikes that would cripple the global economy and America would rush to surrender. And Iran would win on all points. Iran's nuclear program would continue uninterrupted. Iran's neighbors would be cowed into submission. Many people speculated that Iran would soon sink American ships, or innocent oil tankers, and that nobody would be able to stop them.
In fact, Iran's power was so strong that they would be able to toll the straits of Hormuz. Iran would be stronger than ever.
That seems to not have happened.
Likewise, the global energy crisis has not materialized. Where I live gas is about a buck-and-a-quarter more expensive than it was before the war. Plane tickets are more expensive and fertilizer costs have gone up. But, otherwise, nothing continues to happen. And America did not rush to surrender.
In fact, curiously, Iran is apparently giving up their greatest leverage by opening the straits. Why would they do that? We have heard that nobody can take the straits back from them, so why are they ceding it?
The terms now called losing terms were winning terms a few months ago: America bombed Iran, decapitated its leadership, destroyed the bulk of its capacity to manufacture missiles and drones, and will suffer no lasting consequences. The Straits, apparently, will be opened and a ceasefire will be maintained.
The questions now are whether this can be turned into a longer-lasting and more regional peace, and what will become of Iran's nuclear dust. (Not that they can do much with it, because we destroyed the nuclear facilities they would need to use it.) Trump, at least, is pushing to expand the Abraham Accords and lock the entire region into a broader framework for peace. Which doesn't sound like a loss of American prestige to me.
Of course it's possible that fighting will break out again or that the deal will not be as reported.
But wasn't America supposed to have lost?
It’s oil executives and experts who predict an economic catastrophe from a prolonged strait closure. This seems to be the majority opinion among those who know a lot about oil. Iran’s missile capacity has not been meaningfully damaged (only by 30% of pre-war levels and we should assume the remaining 70% is harder to target as tactics developed). The regime is intact and stronger than before. So we got into a ~ $100bil conflict, killed or wounded 400 soldiers, all just to kill an old cleric and sizably damage Iran’s economy. Iran benefits by getting a new tollbooth for their new strait in 60 days, weakening the American-Israel relationship, and plausibly weakening the American-Arab relationships.
Says who?
Oh, ok, we're just discussing vibes and rumors.
US intelligence by way of NYT, WaPo
The fees (toll) has been reported here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/irans-fars-news-agency-says-hormuz-maritime-fees-added-to-us-deal-last-minute/
What does that actually mean? What is it worth? US Intelligence Community produces a lot of intel. There's no guarantee that this is a majority opinion, a generally accepted conclusion. How many hundreds of reports are floating out there right now trying to assess what capabilities the Iranians have left? And the New York Times got to see one of them?
I imagine the CIA would have a team tasked to produce this report. Why wouldn’t the NYT see it? They’ve received leaks in the past.
We can agree that this is the kind of thing we could imagine the CIA might say. I guess that counts for something
What is your source that we had destroyed most of their missiles and launchers? And why would the NYT of all outlets lie about it? We’re not talking Al Jazeera.
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