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 -
Some honest questions I have, because I don't know much about this and it seems like you do: if Iran has truly lost control of the Strait, why are ships still opting to take the Omani route? What level of threat does Iran still possess that makes ships want to stick to that route, and what (reduced) level of threat will be needed for ships to take their normal routes? On what timeframe can that threat reduction be achieved? In other words, if Iran's force projection is 99% degraded, but we need 100% degradation (e.g. not a single drone launch out of Iran at a transiting ship) for full, normally routed traffic to resume, is that something that is achievable? Or is the new normal just sharply reduced traffic through this Omani route, because Iran will always retain SOME ability to pose a threat because getting that last 1% of threat reduction costs way more than the first 99%?
If the Oman route was 100% safe (it's not) and the old route was risky, that would be a complete loss for Iran but we'd still see ships take the Oman route. So just the fact that the ships are taking a different route doesn't say much.
It's more important to look at how many ships slip through and how many get blown up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link