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 -
You could argue just as much that the US foreign policy establishment was already primed for this, independent of Trump’s administration. Had October 7th and the proceeding events happened under Kamala’s watch, for all we know we’d still be in the exact same situation today (or worse). We’ll never know though.
Looking at it from an institutional POV rather than the personal whims of the current president, the war with Iran follows the exact same script as every other war we fumble our way into and lose our way out of:
Create a “problem” by arming or provoking a group in another country to adopt a violent stance.
Stir up a reaction among the public by spreading disinformation or demonizing the government.
Propose a “solution” to the problem that involves military intervention or overthrowing some group or government to put the people you want in power.
This isn’t a “Trump” phenomenon exclusively. Even after more than a quarter of a century of wars, the west still doesn’t understand shit about how the Middle East works. That’s why back in 2019, Ali Khamenei gave a speech in Baghdad where he said, “Praise be to God who’s given us such foolish enemies.”
And just because there’s “opposition” in Iran that would like to see change (as there is in every country), that doesn’t mean they think an outside force should overthrow the government. That’s why in places like Syria, protests had to be instigated from the outside, via social media; and in Iran, the US setup an entire network of servers and app’s to facilitate the mobilization of dissent in the country (that’s what the smuggling in of thousands of Starlink terminals was about).
The whole point of the Starlink system (which was reputed to be impossible to jam) was to create this ‘parallel Internet’ that would evade the surveillance of the IRGC. What Starlink essentially does differently than other satellite systems (which are geostationary systems in high orbit) is use a large amount of satellites that move rapidly in low orbit with equally rapid changes in frequency. And so the “thousands of terminals” then formed these arrayed beams that effectively “track” the satellites. So the system goes in and scans the sky with a terminal, locks onto a satellite rising in the west and follows it until it sets in the east; and then repositions itself to pick up the next one.
The reason why the network went down though, was because its claims were false. The signals did end up getting jammed due to jammers that were synchronized across the entire landmass of Iran. They adopted a strategy the Chinese actually came up with that was developed in anticipation of an invasion of Taiwan: synchronize jammers across the ku-band frequency to saturate the airwaves with a stronger signal, blocking communication between terminals and satellites.
More options
Context Copy link