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.
If this deal goes through, it's going to be an absolute disaster. $300 billion USD, all assets unfrozen, and full access to the Strait along with Oman. Are you kidding me? That's far worse than anything Obama or Biden ever did regarding Iran. All that money going straight into the pockets of terrorists. More money, apparently, than the post-World War II Marshall Plan was in 2026 money ($180 billion). I would have said that they're in a better position than they started in, if many of their leaders weren't killed. But I hope this deal falls through, seriously. It successfully coming through would be a bigger loss than Afghanistan was for Biden. The Israelis need to violate the agreement for our own good.
According to Reuters:
So it isn't comparable to the government-funded Marshall Plan.
@Catsnakes_ @sarker
Why would private companies do this out of the goodness of their cold, capitalistic hearts? Who's paying them?
I am also very curious what $300B of voluntary private contributions look like. Is this a case where the USA will pressure local governments to demand that private industry contribute to the fund, under threat of negative government treatment if certain benchmarks aren't met? I.e. a convoluted tax that will ultimately be passed on to some split of global consumers and investors?
More options
Context Copy link
It's access to invest in a market that is otherwise illegal to access. It's money lying on the table.
Did investment pour into Iran after the 2015 deal? Serious question.
Iran has a couple of things going for it: large, well educated population with oil. On the other hand it's led by angry Islamists who just fought a war with the US and many of its neighbors. High-risk high-reward, perhaps.
The 2015 deal didn't lift sanctions that prevented US firms from doing business with them afaik, so no. Here the private investment ostensibly is the deal. (assuming it happens as presented, which is doubtful)
The 2015 deal would significantly had allowed European firms to do business with Iran, which many European capitals were gearing up in advance. It was one of the reasons the JCPOA's retraction under Trump was an embarassment point for the European Union- they tried to create a dummy intermediary system to shield European companies from American sanction violations, but the European companies didn't want to risk American market access regardless.
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