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 MOU Homesick Blues
Over the last two days, Donald Trump and JD Vance have been selling their embryonic Iran Deal to the American public and to the world. Trump has said, among other things:
Directly he states:
Along with this banger
JD has said:
Israeli ministers have been striking out against the deal
Now reports are coming in that Israel does not consider itself bound by the MOU, and intends to keep bombing Lebanon without reference to it.
The IRGC has stated today:
With the United States executive committed to the MOU, and Israel committed to the opposite policy, Yeshiva World News reports:
So, what now?
How does the USA navigate this problem with its erstwhile ally?
Part of me feels very strongly, the patriotic Toby Keith, regardless of your feelings about US policy or about this administration, that we can't have our president get cucked like that on the world stage. Trump has publicly signed, endorsed, justified, sold the MOU. He's stated clearly that it is necessary to the interests of the United States in maintaining the global economy. If Israel is our ally, our greatest ally, then they can't be allowed to do this to us. They can't insult and undermine the clear foreign policy of the POTUS and be allowed to do so. From the beginning I've said that Israeli forces, inasmuch as they are allied to the USA, should be under the command of an American general, Spartan style. They can't be allowed to go against us and continue to suck off the teat of the American taxpayer.
So plan trusters, antisemities, pro-Palestinians, shitlibs, anyone. Where do we go from here with Israel? What happens next? How can you, as the American President, allow your ally to undermine your own clearly stated foreign policy goals and, in your own opinion, wreck the world economy? At this point in the process what pressure can even be put on Iran?
This feels bad.
It's been clear for a while (really since the ceasefire) that Trump has been looking for a way to extract himself from this situation and walk away with minimal possible concessions. In this case the mou's concrete provisions are mostly a way to do this, with aspirations of a "final deal" that could potentially, in the viewer's imagination, deliver wins for the preferred side. (Of course as I've been saying the "final deal" and its associated 300B is a total pipe dream)
Reading between the lines, the "deal" basically seems to be a "don't mess with us and we won't mess with you" sort of thing, where the US lifts its blockade while Iran stops attacking neutral shipping. Lebanon is a sideshow and both sides know their shipping is the only important thing that matters now, and neither side wants to defect over some trifling matter.
We know that "Project Freedom" has been continuing, and supposedly Iran has not attacked any ships on the southern route for 2 days. This is likely what the US demanded from Iran in exchange for lifting the blockade. Ships are warily heading into the route, with ais off and at night, because even though attacks aren't happening, there's still fear in the air. The US though is asking ships to start taking the route during daytime and with ais on. Meanwhile Iran is running its mouth about tolls and the northern route. A bunch of Chinese ships are taking that route, because if the bully in the house is offering you safe passage for free, why not take it. But if Iran doesn't let other ships in the route, they won't learn to accept it and be beholden to them. The rules right now are: any ship with balls can yolo it down the southern route with no approvals or permissions, or if you don't have balls, beg and wait in line for permission to pass in the northern route. So as long as Iran doesn't start blowing up cargo ships, they'll naturally start feeling a sense of safety under US guidance, and after a while traffic will be restored to the southern and original routes, completely ignoring any Iranian toll nonsense.
Anyways, looping back to Lebanon, it might be a sideshow, but both sides want to avoid Israel doing anything too provocative, lest it end up as really bad optics. So likely Netanyahu will be kept on a leash for the short term: the occupation will continue and low level tit for tat attacks will happen daily. But Israel won't go on any serious offensive operations. Once both Iran and US are locked in and complacent in the status quo, the leash will probably come off for both Israel and Hamas, and they'll be able to duke it out fully. Just not now.
The point of an MOI, in commercial law at least, is that in complicated negotiations with a lot of moving parts, it makes sense to have a written record of the items the parties actually agree on so that they don't become issues later on. To that effect, the idea that the negatives for the US in this memo won't end up as part of the final agreement is wishful thinking. The reason this deal repeatedly came close and then failed was because the Iranians were demanding that the US front -load most of the benefits to Iran, as they were always going to be inclined to do considering Trump's track record when it comes to looking for reasons to back out of deals, including with the Iranians themselves. That's what makes this deal so bad, before it's even been finalized; the Iranians get everything they want, and what the US wants is still subject to negotiation. The only way the 300 billion, or sanctions relief, or the unfreezing of funds, is off the table is if the entire deal goes sideways, at which point we're in the same place we were a week ago with the strait being closed except we don't have a navy in the region to enforce a blockade.
To be clear, I'm not going to criticize Trump for making a bad deal, because sometimes a bad deal is better than no deal. I will criticize Trump for putting the country in a position where they were forced to accept a bad deal. The nuclear question isn't even relevant at this point, because Iran found out that the greatest military in the world can't stop them from nuking the global economy, which is a much more powerful weapon considering they can actually use it. Prior to this war, there was a question as to whether Iran had this capability, and previous presidents agreed that it was better not to find out. Now we know, and the answer isn't good.
The downblending of the uranium, as a minimum, is as much a part of the MOA as the 300B is.
Anyway, in commercial law it is understood that both sides are expected to be negotiating in good faith. That is very much not true here.
That applies to literally everything Trump is involved in.
It also applies to Iran.
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