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 -
As far as I can see the post above doesn't state Iran is winning, only that USA is not winning.
I do not think a country can win a war, in general. A country can only lose a war, in the case that it ceases to exist. But there is no such thing as a country winning the war, because a country is not an entity that can experience the benefits from the war and thus have some measure of the victory.
People can win benefits in a war. Citizens can win lower prices through their country's higher geopolitical influence. MIC lobbies can win loads of money. Presidents can win reelections. This is all in the descending order of how well-distributed the benefits of a war are.
No one wins benefits simply by bombing some abstract enemy in a vacuum, except perhaps the very thin benefits of morale.
If you want to show America is winning, demonstrate the Americans that are winning - winning something.
This is the critical point. A drawn war is a bad result for both sides. (The famous example is the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, because Kissinger said "It's a pity both sides can't lose", but the war was indecisive so both sides kind of did).
If this was a Paradox game, the warscore would be something like 20% in favour of the US with no visible path to 100% before the "Vassal levies raised too long" warning was joined by a "There are dangerous factions" warning.
More options
Context Copy link
World War II, Mexican-American, Punic, Imjin, Franco-Prussian, Napoleonic? Sure there are countries that have benefited from winning wars. It’s one of the reasons they fight them. It’s like saying the Lakers can’t win any games because a team definitionally is an entity that’s not capable of experiencing catharsis. This is a word game.
Trump controlling the Strait of Hormuz and blockading Iranian oil means that a terrorist state that kills Americans is defeated, a supply of energy to the Chinese powering their artificially cheap industrialization is cut off, a major drone supplier for Russia in its war against Ukraine is disabled, OPEC is made subservient to American power. American power makes the average American rich.
More options
Context Copy link
A nation certainly can win a war and reap benefits, but the US never quite was one, I think.
As long as you're defining a nation as a group of people.
No; as a kin group.
Of people. And not a territory with a particular set of borders and a flag.
Yes, correct. Though the relationship between the two isn't so arbitrary. The land and the people coevolve.
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