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 -
Don’t confuse Iran’s lack of effectiveness with the intent to be pragmatic.
They have the intent to assassinate Trump and a whole list of other people they blame for the Soleimani strike.
And if their missile attack had killed Americans in Iraq, Trump would have responded in kind and we don’t know how that escalatory cycle would have gone. (Iran believes they did kill troops, so they think they got one over on Trump.)
I personally think that the Trump assassination plan was one born more of smaller radical elements within an often emboldened and somewhat independent IRGC rather than anything central, so although we heard about the plan I don't really put high chances on them going through with it even if we hadn't figured it out/his security hadn't been increased. Their intentions are still absolutely pragmatic on the whole.
Of course we do know that Trump was literally 5 or 10 minutes away from ordering a larger retaliatory strike against Iran that would have had a direct military death toll of at least a dozen, so yeah the potential for escalation is still there, though I still think neither side truly wants that kind of thing, those sorts of misplaced judgements just happen in military and foreign high-stakes stuff. I do think that in that event, a dozen or more direct military deaths, they would feel obligated, against their better judgement, to actually kill some Americans. Don't mistake their public claims that they killed Americans for an actual belief -- they deliberately say stuff like that to pacify their own populace (and even internal elements) into thinking they weren't as weak as they were (for example claiming they did more damage than they actually did in the 300-odd missile strike at Israel the other month, national TV was showing unrelated footage from something else in order to give the impression that their strike did something, allowing the face-saving measure of saying "ok retaliation complete" and claiming victory).
Although the IRGC is probably more genuinely angry about Soleimani, overriding pragmatism even, though they have a lot of leeway they still aren't actually in charge. The actual leadership, Khomeini for example, probably know that Soleimani was kind of asking for it and that although they obviously weren't happy, still viewed him as at least somewhat a "fair" target. Because intelligence was highly specific that he had planned, and continued to plan, stuff that was directly leading to US deaths in Iraq and elsewhere.
Well you’re wrong.
The IRGC’s whole damn bit is doing what the Supreme Leader wants.
The kill list for US officials involved with the Soleimani strike is not some rogue faction’s idea.
You have no idea how to model the motivations and machinations of the Iranian regime. Khamenei loved Soleimani. Soleimani was carrying out the express wishes of the Supreme Leader in his operations.
They were quite surprised about Soleimani’s death. That was a big change for the US to do that.
The Iranians are quite often high on their own supply and don’t just consciously use lies to placate their dumb citizens (as the Russians do). They are actually religious fanatics. They aren’t insane, but they are not nearly as rational as many in the West want to believe and they really do have ideological commitments we find pretty mind boggling. (For instance, a devotion to destroying the state of Israel.)
There is a very high chance the Iranians stupidly try a major attack (for the death of a Hamas leader, not an Iranian, no less), and then Israel responds a lot stronger than they ever have before. I don’t think Israel is bluffing about their intended response and I don’t think they’ll let Biden restrain them.
Common sense would lead the Iranians to back off any large scale military attacks and merely try more of an in kind response like assassinating a Jew somewhere, but their egos and rhetoric is making it clear they want to do more.
Hopefully, the wiser more risk-aware advisors to Khamenei win the day.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link