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 -
Yep, many people didn't know it of course. But people who even half-seriously follow modern war without being blinded by some sort of bias knew it.
Sure, but having the Persian Gulf closed down for months would still be a giant shit show for the world economy. And probably not good for the Democratic Party in an election year given that in today's US political situation, there is unlikely to be some sort of "rally around the flag" effect as a result of any war that didn't start with the US getting directly attacked, and the Democratic Party base is divided about Israel to begin with.
This is a matter of preference. Personally, I am in favor of Iran getting nukes because I do not wish them to be continually threatened by Israel and the US. The "world" would largely be unaffected. It's not like if Iran gets nukes, they are going to nuke Zimbabwe or Thailand or something. In fact, even if they got nukes, given the reality of mutually assured destruction they almost certainly would not even nuke Israel or any US assets.
What's the smallest nation or group that you would like to be armed with nukes. Iran is a state supporter of terrorism with a population of 90 million.
Presumably, Saudi Arabia or Japan having nukes is a much smaller threat so I assume you are cool with them. Let's go smaller.
Taiwan?
Qatar?
Cuba?
Should Catalonia have nukes?
How about Texas?
Hawaii?
The NRA?
Antifa?
The KKK?
Can I get a nuke? I mean, mutually assured destruction if I use it right.
Iran is about the LAST country that should have nukes.
As I said, this is a preference. I am not going to try to justify it rationally or through moral arguments, and I would fail even if I tried. As a spectator, I am against team US/Israel. So I want their enemies to have nukes.
I want myself and those I root for to have nukes, that's about all there is to it as far as I am concerned.
At the same time, I am not a sociopath. I am fine with the US having nukes in order to actually defend itself. But I want others to also be able to defend themselves. Also, I don't actually like Iran. I hate their social conservatism and authoritarianism. I only like them insofar as they are a thorn in the US and Israel's sides. In any case, US/Israeli attacks on Iran have done nothing to actually make Iran less conservative or authoritarian, so I see no point in rooting for team US/Israel even in order to help Iran's people.
I don't want Iran to actually nuke anyone, but I want them to be able to deter team US/Israel. Which, if they got nukes, is what I think would almost certainly happen. They might be a bit crazy over there in Tehran, but if so then not much more than the average politician, and I don't think they want to engage in mutually assured destruction. As this latest round of very limited escalation actually shows very well.
I find moral arguments in geopolitics to be pretty pointless in general, and they rarely go anywhere. And very often they just disguise irrational tribal preferences anyway, even when the people engaging in them do not realize it. I am more interested in talking about power and capabilities.
You have things remarkably backwards.
The US and Israel only attack Iran because since 1979 Iran has been controlled by a theocracy that considers the US and Israel to be, unironically, “Big and Little Satan.”
Iran having nukes would be massively destabilizing to the region even if you take Israel out of the equation. Iranian ideology isn’t kind to basically any of its neighbors.
I have no idea what your preferred worldview is beyond disliking the US and Israel, but don’t pretend Iran is some poor oppressed country that needs to defend itself when it is the aggressor.
And why did we the theocracy take power in 1979? I would have to reread my history for specifics but it’s something something awful oil deals with the west where Iran got none of the money. Then Iraq invaded. A little over ten years after that ended America invaded Iraq and puts a new hostile to Iran government in power. George Bush says something about Iran being evil and being that he just invaded Iraq it doesn’t sound like Iran itself is that secure.
This has a whole lot of who did what bad to who first in it. Regardless the west has chosen a path to not like Iran and threaten them and Iranian response has been funding proxy wars all over the place.
Iran can’t look at the Middle East or the world and just assume they get territorial integrity. Not when the West invaded Iraq and broke Syria.
It’s far too broad of a brush to say Iran is the aggressor. Israel-Iran is a proxy war in the Saudi-Iran and US-Iran proxy wars.
I guess you could say Iran bad because Islam bad and theocracy is bad (I am not against theocracy) and America is good because Democracy is good and well I’m bored and want to culture war some but also Pride flags are good. But blaming Iran as the aggressor seems factually false.
As a counter example, look at Vietnam.
The US/West did way, way worse things to Vietnam than we ever did to Iran, and vice versa. But now we are on pretty friendly terms.
If Vietnam acted like Iran or North Korea by being a perpetual threat to the US and its allies then it would still be considered an enemy.
Vietnam isn’t a great power. Always a vassal. This is just everything good just bend the knee to America and ignores that other countries have goals and the US interferes with them.
To be blunt, I think you’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Vietnam is a medium power next to an ambitious major power they fought a war with not that long ago. They have mellowed on their ideology and so relations with the US, a former foe, help them economically and geopolitically to counter China.
Iran is also a medium power, though they do not have a border with a major threat/rival since 2003. Unlike Vietnam, they do have strong ideological foundations that drive their foreign policy to be ant-Israel and anti-US and anti-Sunni, much to the detriment of their economy. If Iran were 50% saner, they would be much more powerful.
North Korea is another example. They have a border with a major protector. They have some strange ideology that boils down to wanting all of Korea, which the US stands in the way of. North Korea could decide to calm down on its territorial ambitions and then the US would have no reason to strongly oppose them.
Vietnam and South Korea seek relations with the US to achieve their goals to counter the threats they face. As does Israel and a host of other countries.
Vietnam and the US let bygones be bygones within living memory of a war that was horrendous in particular for the people of Vietnam.
Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.
“Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.”
I agree with this. The US interferes with Iran’s historical place as the dominant Middle East hegemon. Vietnam and the US have mutual interests. Opposing Chinese dominance. Iran and the US have opposite interests since the US backs the Saudis as regional hegemon. So yes I agree if the Iranians just fell inline and realized they had less oil than the Saudis and accepted second rate status in their region then all would be good. This is like saying the US would just play nice if Russia was picking the governments of Canada and Mexico and the Bahamas and wouldn’t be backing military proxies to stress Russian military assets in the region.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link