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 -
In January of 2025? After the high intensity part of this spat in Gaza was long over. Israel pulled the bulk of its troops out many months prior. Conflicts end. I don't think the US made Israel do anything it didn't want to do in signing a ceasefire in 2025. * Just checking my work January 16th cease fire by al-Houthi. January 17 missiles fired. February 10th the same occurred, 6 days later still engaging US aircraft and vessels. Is there a period where Houthis have actually worked to respect a cease fire I'm missing?
It's unlikely the US could have achieved this in January of 2024 with the same amount (or lack thereof) of pressure. Neither did the US apply any sort of great pressure to achieve it in January of 2025. Israel was very motivated to fight a high intensity conflict. The Houthis were very motivated to cause problems for them. The US was motivated to prevent the Gazan conflict from spilling out into a broader conflict it would be engaged, which is why the US is reacting with most of its strikes in January 2025 onwards, and not January 2024.
If you're saying that US strikes in March 2025 make less sense than they would in March 2024 then yes, I agree. Israel cease fire, problem solved-- or not. Houthi's pulling a lever they shouldn't touch is still not solved. Nobody wants them pulling the lever again. They haven't agreed to this. Israel hasn't agreed to never invade its neighbors or respond to its neighbor's aggression either.
The US did not create any great feats of diplomacy here. Continue selling some armaments to Israel, help their air defense, and hope things didn't get worse. The US neither dissuaded Israeli action, nor dissuaded Houthi action. When it seemed less risky -- or a new administration came in less averse to escalatory risks -- it acted in a belated fashion. Trump decided Something Had to be Done and as is clear I agree. Something should have been done. There should be an understanding. Don't hold ships hostage. Here's your bombs. Sorry they're late.
Knowing your merchant ships won't be boarded by pirates is good for every civilized nation. Not invading neighbors is good, too. I consider the not attacking merchant ships more good for more people and more achievable than I do about Israeli responding to their attack in a Forever War. There's lots of consensus that piracy is bad and the Houthis have been naughty.
Consistently enough for myself to consider it preferential to the alternative. Which is why I advocate for dropping bombs on pirates.
I have no illusion as to failures in consistency. This is a reality of the world we live in when it comes to conflict. If you're upset the world doesn't make complete sense, is fully justified, and orderly then I am sorry. I wish it was. I also wish nation states were like principled rationalists in their humility and honesty. If you would advocate for the US to go in and bring Houthi pirates to the Hague I'd say that sounds dangerous and costly, but orderly. I wouldn't blame you. If you'd say you believe might makes right is the purest and only way to have a world that makes sense, then I guess you'd advocate for America harshly punishing those that make themselves her enemy.
I do not think you are advocating either of these. It sounds like you do not consider Israeli actions justifiable, so the US should either stop them or not stop Houthis or not care about global shipping and stay home. I think you should care a little bit about the security of global shipping, but I understand. It is possible for the US to not be engaged in this conflict. The Suez being crippled is a bigger deal for Europeans as Vice President Vance pointed out. I don't fret too much about it. With time we can grow used to a less functional world without American policing. Patience.
Sending tomahawks to crush a hut is a waste of money. Which is why the US should actually find painful targets that make sense to hit. Maybe they don't exist. I don't know. Low to mid-level agents might be one action. Weapons manufacturing sounds like another common one. If this is not possible, then still send the tomahawks to the hut. Not an infinite number. Maybe less than we have, but do something. I'm not privy to those decisions, but I imagine the US intelligence has gathered a list of suitable targets.
More options
Context Copy link