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 -
The full text of the memorandum has been released and confirmed by the White House:
If this is signed as written on Friday, I predict major ructions in the GOP, particularly the Senate, which were already coming to a head before this.
No toll on the strait, Iran's nuclear material will be destroyed, and diplomatic relations between Iran and America are approaching normal status. Iran's military has been substantially reduced by American bombs. In exchange Iran will be allowed to rejoin the global economic system and begin redevelopment. Matters relating to Israel and broader regional peace will be postponed for the future, but are clearly progressing in a good direction. This is broadly what I have been predicting for months now.
I'm sure that many are going to balk at the $300 Billion and proclaim that this is a bad deal. But if Iran gives up its nuclear program and stops threatening regional war and international trade, the Iran concern is over.
Iran was willing to pinky promise never to build nuclear weapons and play nicely with Obama, too. And Obama got that without paying Iran $300B.
"No toll on the strait (maybe!)" also is a weird flex.
People on this forum were confidently predicting that Iran would toll the strait and this would be evidence that Iran had won. I predicted it would not happen and that this would be evidence that Iran lost.
So far the strait remains untolled.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IF
More options
Context Copy link
Where do you get that from the quoted passage? They'll just pretend they're enriching for "totally true trust us guys it makes sense" civilian power and medical isotopes.
We destroyed their nuclear facilities and now we’re going to destroy the material that remains.
Well now you’re just arguing that Iran isn’t going to follow the deal. If that’s the argument it doesn’t even matter if the deal is good or bad.
Ah, didn’t see the downblending. Yeah, that's pretty big.
I mean, it does if there's a hard stop: "we agree that Iran shall not have more than X entichment facilities" or "shall source all enriched Uranium from Y country and have no domestic enrichment capability" . Something that focuses on directly-measurable limits that can't be (easily) hidden or weaseled out of or "well, the inspectors suspect, but have no proof, so..."
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