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 -
This is the crux of the text as is. Most concessions in both sides are in three buckets: what the belligerents offer right now regardless of any deal, what the belligerents offer later conditional on a complete deal, and what the belligerents can't offer personally but promise to pursue via other actors later.
For example, number 11 states "The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MoU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations."
This states that the US undertakes to make fully available, not immediately makes fully available, with the second sentence stating that the procedure for making available must be mutually agreeable based on later negotiations. Later negotiations, in turn, depending on the prospect of the final deal, until which the US side can claim no mutually agreed procedure has been achieved. While this does not necessarily need to be entirely tied to the 'final deal', the it can be as the US, not Iran, desires, with Iran likely going to push for more early and the US pushing for progress/concessions to get there.
Further, most frozen Iranian funds are not frozen under US jurisdiction. The US agreeing to issue all necessary licenses- which is again contingent on the mutual agreed procedure- does not give the US licensing authority over other actors. This turns into an angle where the holding countries have a veto authority over the return of frozen funds. After all, the US undertakes to make fully available, but anyone who reads this as an obligation to 'strongarm' the countries in question is significantly misreading who is liable to try strongarming countries one on one.
Most frozen Iranian funds outside US jurisdiction are frozen by people who were bullied into it by US secondary sanctions. Both the US and Iran know that they will be unfrozen quickly if the US wants them to be, and are negotiating on that basis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link