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.
My take on the tolls, which is all speculation.
I think the mou explicitly states that passage will be free for 60 days, and then doesn't specifically mention what happens afterwards. It probably also says something trivially true, like "Iran maintains sovereignty over its territorial waters," which can be twisted by each side to mean something different.
Iran sees: "Iran maintains sovereignty over its territorial waters, (so they have the right to impose tolls or whatever they want)"
The rest of the world sees: "Iran maintains sovereignty over its territorial waters, (but international law still gives ships the right to pass through freely)."
So after 60 days, Iran may try to claim to impose a passage fee without directly breaking the mou, but likely all other countries will denounce it as meaningless and possibly attempt to pass. Also my guess is that if Iran doesn't agree explicitly to no tolls sometime in the 60 day negotiation period, the sanctions are sticking around, making it difficult for anyone to pay the toll. If that happens, Iran has the choice of blowing up a ship to start shit again, or alternatively just letting it happen. But in that case Iran would probably definitively be seen as an aggressor. I'd also expect that a bunch of countries are going to time warship transits around that time so they just happen to be in the strait at that time.
Anyways, since Iran hasn't definitively agreed not to toll yet in the mou, they can go around talking about how they have plans to toll all they want, without directly lying about the mou.
P.S. Even if Iran claims they're not obligated to allow free passage by international law, Oman did sign the treaties, and thus is obligated to allow ships to slurp through the southern route for free. And even though Oman is friends with Iran, they have enough nice guy image that they stand to lose a lot if they don't meet their treaty obligations. In that case if ships start using the southern route, Iran would have to start blowing up ships down there if they were really dead set on tolls.
Yeah, a lot of people ignore this as it's rather inconvenient for some arguments: Iran would have to be allowed to attack vessels in a foreign nation's waters for them to be able to institute any sort of toll. And at that point, well, all FoN everywhere is basically ended.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link