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 -
I am aware what these quotes were in response to. However, it's hard to ignore the original answer you gave, that both commenters were in turn responding to:
"Western Civilization is better than the Third World and America is better than Iran. Even for all our flaws America at her best is and can be a force for good. Putting America and Iran on the same moral plane is actually a form of weakness because -- well, if it's all the same anyways who cares if Iran conquers? Who cares if barbarism or civilization prevails? It's all predicated on violence anyways right? Well no, I assert that the ends towards which I apply violence are actually more moral than theirs. I do prefer my civilization to theirs. I'm not a neutral third-party observer, I'm not a nihilist. My values are better than theirs and it's justified for me to use violence to defend what's mine."
I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all.
Yes, exactly the outline of the argument I was criticising. America is good, Iran is evil, the violence America inflicts on Iran is justified and the violence Iran inflicts on America is unjustified. Nevermind that both these states include many people who have pretty much nothing to do with the regime in question, and the regime falling apart often means power vacuums, significant instability in the region, massive civil war and other super moral outcomes. It's like collateral doesn't exist to you: the Iranian regime is Evil and therefore Evil must be destroyed. Nevermind that the Iranian regime might be the best of the options currently available to the Iranians, nevermind that American-style Democracy, Whiskey and Sexy is probably not feasible in much of the Middle East as it stands.
You are raining hellfire down on a people, causing instability and destruction in a region which isn't even in your immediate geopolitical sphere that frankly you shouldn't even be involved in, and claiming it is perfectly moral, that as the "good guys" you are entitled to use violence against your enemies. There isn't even a figleaf of pretence that you're "bringing stability to the region" (it may well destabilise it further and is already doing so); you're basking and preening and cheering on the destruction of a country.
No, I'm not a moral relativist; I do believe in good and evil. I wouldn't be able to believe that this war and its supporters are evil otherwise.
And the fact that this is your goal says everything anyone needs to know about your "theory" of military victory. Not only that, I think you're underestimating costs for the US and just how much Iran is holding on, and your argument ignores significant uncertainties around much of the data. That being said your interceptors have been burned through hugely whereas Iranian missile stockpiles as of May were estimated to be approximately still 70% of their prewar total, and they have regained access to 90% of their underground missile storage and launch facilities. Granted it is possible these are conservative overestimates, but I would not be so quick to declare Iran dead in the water yet; the idea that Iran is obviously out of options and hanging on by a thread is wishful thinking and they may well have a good amount of freedom of action left if they want to keep causing pain.
X to doubt. The strait is currently incredibly operationally disrupted and the idea that it's "clear" that "a lot" of traffic is transiting is capeshit Amerikaposting of the highest order. Only six ships went through the strait on Sunday, and I don't know about you but that doesn't sound anywhere close to a lot to me. There are multiple estimates of this, and all show significantly and catastrophically reduced shipping through the strait; as long as that is the case the supply shocks will continue. I frankly do not know where you are getting your information diet from, but you're very clearly ignoring any data that contradicts your extremely jingoistic cries of victory.
I'm sure the more you say this, the more true it will become.
"Based." What else am I supposed to believe?
This is just the problem of war, there were lots of nice civilians in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union too, a lot of bystanders and innocents are made to suffer and that's unfortunate and we all hope the suffering can be minimized. So what's your point? Warmed-over pacifism does not actually stress me. I still believe that Iran acquiring nukes would be evil, and it's good for America to stop this.
I have never argued that regime change is necessary and neither has Trump. I think it causes great confusion for war critics when they imagine that the Iranian regime surviving is proof that Iran is winning.
See, there we are. This isn't an impassionate debate about whether America is winning the war or not, it's just a debate about good and evil. You have your views and I have mine. So don't criticize me for proclaiming on good and evil when your argument just as fundamentally rests on your own morals.
It sounds like your assessment of the war is just believing pro-IRGC sources and doubting pro-America sources.
Once upon a time it was asserted that Iran controlled the strait and no ships were passing through at all. I consider this pretty decent progress toward accepting my views. Give it time for America to wipe out the last of Iran's capabilities and even more ships will start making the transit.
The point is that the costs of such engagements (lost human lives, further destabilisation of the region) should make war a last resort, employed only once all diplomatic action has failed and when there is strong proof of a present threat. These conditions have not been met in the case of the Iran war, where diplomacy was still a possible course of action and there is no evidence they were producing warheads. I do not believe that this war was started for prudent reasons at all; the US and Israel really just appear to have attacked because they thought Iran was showing signs of weakness and they saw it as a great opportunity.
I am not arguing that regime change was the goal, I’m arguing that even if you don't intend to do so you can still badly destabilise and destroy the region. Regarding the goals of the war, I think the instigators of the war had many different objectives; Netanyahu in particular certainly wanted regime change. Trump was very wishy-washy on this, but many of his statements suggest regime change was at least one goal among others.
"Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America's help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight." Unlike how you’ve portrayed it, he did not say it was “not essential” and alongside what Dase posted about Unconditional Surrender, it sure sounds like regime change was on the menu.
The official narrative surrounding regime change is really quite funny, to be honest. The administration's later statements are this contradictory mix of “Regime change was never our goal, but also it if was we achieved it”, somewhat akin to “It’s not happening and if it is it’s good”. Trump wants to back out at this point, and in spite of the fact that he advocated the idea of regime change early on he has now reneged on the idea just in case he needs to cut his losses and save face, since that goal is a lot more definite and less open-ended than “depleting missile stocks” and “harming Iranian military-industrial complex” - which frankly is not that meaningful of a war goal in itself; in any war you’re virtually always guaranteed to deplete your enemy’s war resources to some degree. Ultimately what you have to consider is the cost-benefit of the engagement; does the loss of your interceptors and other war resources (which limits your ability to project power elsewhere) outweigh the benefit of hampering the combat-readiness of the Iranian regime, and is it still worth it once you factor in the economic shocks and regional instability the whole affair caused? That kind of sober analysis is what strategic victory is about, it’s not some chimp-brained goal solely oriented around fucking your enemies up.
No shit lol, I thought that was clear the second I said your moral system was disturbing. There is no way to discuss morality without having some of your own moral priors to begin with. And I never criticised you simply for making proclamations on good and evil, my criticism is that you believe all action taken against The Evil is automatically justified, regardless of the collateral damage it may cause. Just because you don’t like something and believe it is evil doesn’t mean it automatically becomes moral or high-minded for you to utilise any violence you want to achieve your aims.
US intelligence is now a pro-IRGC source, got it.
Besides, you’ve been the one trumpeting American victory uncritically, you solely believe “pro-America sources” and ignore “pro-IRGC sources” whereas I have been relatively cautious in my assessments, so for you to accuse me of that is projection to the highest degree. Your confidence that Iranian capabilities have been completely decimated should not be anywhere near as high as it is.
And there you go again proclaiming victory based on nothing but your own jingoistic fanfictions. Six ships going through, with massive supply chain disruptions still ongoing, is not something to be gleeful about.
EDIT: wording
Yes, that’s how war works, do you even hear yourself? We win if Iran surrenders and one of the ways that can happen is if their government falls.
Perhaps the syntax is confusing: What I mean is that the official narrative is currently trying to play both sides; on the one hand, we are supposed to believe that regime change was never the goal, on the other, regime change has already been achieved. The impressive degree of hedging from the current administration is rather amusing, and suggests to me the US is really trying to save face.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
See, that's what I say I hate about you, and what you gleefully embrace: goalpost movement and unconditional defense of anything The Great Leader does and how he contradicts himself. Utterly zigger-like. Speaking of unconditional, we've been over this:
1 week into the war.
Does this looks like the MOU and the acceptance of Mojtaba Khamenei?
This was after Trump already bombed and killed Iran's leaders and they were in the process of selecting new ones. When actually speaking on the subject of regime change, Trump made it clear in his address launching the war that the Iranian people had the opportunity to overthrow the regime, and that he hoped that they would take it, but that it was not essential. The line about "no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" is actually the more inflexible line if I have to explain anything away, but I don't think there's very much to explain. All wars aim for surrender and most end with settlement instead. I have argued before that the MOU was an Iranian surrender, if adhered to.
Wut? No, "unconditional surrender" is not a normal military objective, virtually all wars have some limited aims from the start. Maybe that's just American experience because you routinely fight for regime extermination against weak or non-state actors?
You might as well say that all wars aim at genocide and end with limited death. This is not the case, people mostly go to war for, like, a specific finite piece of territory.
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