site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27992 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The solution to Russia has nukes is not back down anytime they want something. Then the whole world would be ruled by Russia. A thing worse than nuclear war.

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_32_Members.png

We shouldn't be willing to escalate maximally over every conflict. Quite simply, Russia cares about Ukraine more than the US does.

But take your opinion to its logical conclusion. You'd risk nuclear war to defend Ukraine. What about Georgia? Syria? Trade rights? Why aren't we invading China to stop the Uhygur genocide. Does our inaction prove that genocide is okay? Certainly the Uhygurs will get nukes if we can't protect them.

I enjoy living in a country that is peaceful and prosperous. And yet people are willing to risk nuclear war over a country on the other side of the world that has virtually no strategic value. Furthermore, we are willing to destroy that country in the process and kill a sizeable percentage of its male population. I maintain this is insane and I want no part in it.

Furthermore, we are willing to destroy that country in the process and kill a sizeable percentage of its male population.

The USA is shelling Ukraine?

We are giving Ukraine enough arms to continue the fight instead of helping them negotiate a peace.

Every day, Ukrainian men are being conscripted and forced against their will to fight on the front lines. Many of these will die or be horribly maimed. Without U.S. involvement this would not be possible. This terrible conflict is being cheered on by people in the West who have no skin in the game.

Who's killing those men and are they really unable to stop?

Russia is encircled

I genuinely don't understand this. What are you talking about? Russia has a border with a a couple of NATO countries. Where's the "encirclement"?

and powerless

Russia sucks, West to blame

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_32_Members.png

What on earth is the fear here? Are we seriously still entertaining the idea that the west wants to invade Russia? For what possible reason? NATO doesn't expand by rolling tanks into its neighbor's territory, it expands by offering protection from Russia which does appear fond of the whole rolling tanks in approach.

Most of the pro-Ukraine side believe that Putin is basically a second Hitler, and can only be stopped by military force. And these people set policy for the west. So yes, the west does want to invade Russia. The only reason they don't is because of nukes.

Until he started invading places caring about Russia was something that got you literally laughed at in US politics. And that some people hate him does not at all imply any kind of invasion. There is zero interest in the west to occupy Russia. Get rid of Putin so he stops fucking around in Geopolitics? Sure. But what is the upside to invading and occupying Russia? Why would anyone bother even if it were realistically possible?

Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?

The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things. The rhetoric and rationale is very similar to what the pro Ukraine brigade says nowadays. The Taliban and Saddam are monsters, basically Hitler. America needs to project an image of strength. You can't negotiate with Hitlers. A message needs to be sent to potential state sponsors of terrorism/Hitler. What are you, a pussy?

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.

Then why the constant talk about appeasement and Hitler, if not to get people psychologically ready for a war?

The appeasement of Hitler is just the most recent example of appeasement not working and people keep suggesting that Russia should be appeased by letting them take over Ukrainian territory. You'll note that after Hitler was stopped the rest of the west did not colonize Germany and it still exists as an influential independent country in good standing.

The United States does many things that are not rational. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Both were unsuccessful in the long term and huge wastes of resources. But, nevertheless, the Americans reasoned themselves into doing these things.

These were not wars of conquest nor was proximity to NATO countries a major factor.

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. Maybe it won't go as far as hot war, maybe it will. But, when I see so many people calling here and elsewhere for dramatic escalation, saying Putin is the next Hitler, calling any move for de-escalation "appeasement", drawing maps of a partitioned Russia, yes, I think the west wants war with Russia. Even knowing it would be stupid.

I'm just not really interested on whether we've hurt Putin's feelings because after he invaded neighbors unprovoked in a war of conquest he gets compared to the last guy in Europe to invade his neighbors in wars of conquest. It doesn't somehow retroactively justify the whole invading your neighbors in wars of conquest thing. You don't get to act like an unhinged lunatic because you're concerned that people around you might treat you like an unhinged lunatic and then pretend your subsequent treatment justifies your behavior. when you escalate and have all the ability in the world to de-escalate you can't call the people you're currently invading unreasonable for not de-escalating, this isn't even behavior we'd accept in our toddlers.

All Putin and Russia need to do is get the fuck over themselves and step out of the 20th century. The whole high school bully act was lame after you graduated and decades on it's just pathetic.

Germany was, in fact, dismembered by the Allies, some millions of Germans were killed or forcibly displaced from territories in the East (so they could be given to Poland), and the proposal was seriously floated to deindustrialize the nation. In the east this was carried out to some extent with factories and plant seized and moved to the USSR. In the West, that wasn't carried out, but for reasons of geopolitical expediency. This is to say nothing of the destruction of cities, mass rapes and the largest book burning project ever conducted. Germany is indeed today, rehabilitated (unfortunately), but it was a very painful road.

I'm not really sure what you mean by step out of the 20th century. The 21st century started with the US invading countries in the Middle East to project power. Is your point that America can do these things and get away with them because they are strong while Russia is weak? But then, isn't the battlefield exactly the place to prove those things?

The reason I bring up Russia's weakness is that it is farcical that they will attack Germany, Poland, Estonia, or other NATO countries.

This is why being anti-war is hard. Every time I bring up my anti-war stance, a bunch of people appear in my replies accusing me of being pro-Russia. I am not justifying Russia's reasons for fighting. Russia is wrong.

  1. Russia is at fault for the Ukraine War

  2. Russia does not present a compelling alternative to Western hegemony. The West is best.

  3. Putin's justifications of the war are not valid

All of these are true, and yet the war should be ended immediately on practical grounds.

yet the war should be ended

The passive voice here is the problem. If I am doing British politics (and I am, as a British citizen posting on a political forum during an election campaign) then "the war should be ended" is either irrelevant cant, or a way of saying "A coalition of civilized countries including the UK should end the war" while dodging the question of how. If NATO actually wanted to end the war without relying on Russia or Ukraine's willingness to act against their perceived self-interest to help us, the fastest way to do so would be to provide Ukraine with sufficient support to win it.

As far as I can see 90% of the people saying "the war should be ended" mean "the civilized world, led by the US, should jawbone Ukraine into surrendering to Russia*". The practical consequences of this probably include the enslavement, expulsion, or extermination of the Ukrainian people (which of these being largely down to the whims of a madman), so how the jawboning is supposed to work is left as an exercise to the reader. I would not wish to speculate how many of the people on the centre and left saying "the war should be ended" would still be willing to say so if they thought about what they were actually saying. I am reasonably comfortable that the pro-Putin right know exactly what they are doing.

  • A negotiated peace which leaves Ukraine less defensible than it was in 2022 is unconditional surrender by salami slicing, given Russia's disinclination to abide be previous negotiated agreements to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. There seems to be a broad agreement that "Ukrainian neutrality" - i.e. a ban on the kind of security co-operation with the civilized world that made Ukraine defensible in 2022 - will be a necessary part of any negotiated peace that Russia could accept.

It's just not really reasonable to call people who support the defense of a nation "pro war". If someone attacks me after making it clear they want to kill me I am not pro-fighting when I defend myself. People who support me defending myself are not pro-fighting. It's unreasonable to demand I or the people supporting me should allow the person attacking me to merely severe a limb or two despite them at no point actually making any sign they'd stop after doing so. There is precisely one pro-war faction and it's the one that started the war and could end it at any time, attempting to frame it otherwise is an absurdity.

And yes, we do have some obligation here, Ukraine get rid of its nuclear capabilities under the promise that this would not be allowed to happen. Where Ukraine goes so does nuclear non-proliferation and frankly and kind of mantle of justice.

Victory at any cost is a pro-war position. Throwing out all cost/benefit calculations because Russia started it is unreasonable.

At least spell out what you wouldn't be willing to do to reclaim Ukrainian territory.

I wouldn't be willing to condone firing a nuclear weapon into Russian territory. But supplying Ukrainians with weapons is not even in the ballpark of when we start talking about "any cost", those are the minimum table stakes.

reclaim Ukrainian territory.

You're trying to change the frame. There is no such offer where Ukraine draws new borders and returns to peace with Russia, It's fictional and the Putin's equally fictional Casus Belli remains, no serious person would trust a peace agreement he has already broken.

I wouldn't be willing to condone firing a nuclear weapon into Russian territory.

Thank you. I respect that.

This discussion originally got started with U.S. boots on the ground which is what I said is "insane" and other users wouldn't renounce. So we need to decide what we're actually talking about here.

You're trying to change the frame. There is no such offer where Ukraine draws new borders and returns to peace with Russia, It's fictional and the Putin's equally fictional Casus Belli remains, no serious person would trust a peace agreement he has already broken.

I'm trying to understand how you and other people on this forum think the war will end. I suppose a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea is possible and if you're advocating for that I can accept it's a reasonable position.

How do you think it will end?

Everything I see from Russia makes me thing it’s win or lose.

What you propose of current lines would seem to be a frozen conflict but I don’t think Russia will make that offer.

How do you think it will end?

I don't know honestly. Here's some things that I think are possible.

  1. Best case scenario would probably be Putin dying which would allow both sides to negotiate without looking weak.

  2. After that, a frozen conflict is possible and not too bad

  3. Ukraine might collapse and negotiate a separate peace under unfavorable terms. If this happens, it will be better if it happens sooner as fewer people will die. More likely it will happen after some years and there won't be much worth saving.

  4. Russia might collapse. Unlikely but it's possible.

  5. West sends boots on the ground. This unlocks a lot of different outcomes: from Russia being sent home with tail between its legs, to an embarrassing fiasco for NATO, to a nuclear exchange. <-- #5 is where I don't want to be.

More comments

I'm trying to understand how you and other people on this forum think the war will end. I suppose a frozen conflict like North Korea/South Korea is possible and if you're advocating for that I can accept it's a reasonable position.

Hard to make predictions like that. Some chance Russia eventually grinds through ukraine and wins. Some chance Ukraine expels Russia outside of its pre war border and putin walks it off. Some chance Putin kicks the bucket in the near term naturally or otherwise and then it's hard to predict but seems unlikely a predecessors decides to bother trying to finish the job.

NATO is just an arbitrary line you are drawing right now because it excludes Ukraine. The rest you are just asking questions.

I can just as easily say would you risks nuclear war over Estonia. Population 1.3 million? That’s stupid to cause millions to die in nuclear war.

There is of course no obvious line for brinkmanship.

You pick NATO. I point to The Budapest Memorandum. So yes we have treaty obligations with Ukraine.

Ukraine of course is white. Which does count for something in US discourse.

Ukraine also has strategic reasons it’s easier to defend than waiting for the brinkmanship to occur somewhere else.

The larger population means they have more meat to throw at the problem. Drawing the line at Ukraine would mean that the next line is probably something like the Baltics. Where you would need to put German and American soldiers at risks versus Ukrainians. And if you let Russia have Ukraine then you enlarge their army as Ukrainian meat becomes Russian meat to build their army.

So yes Ukraine has a lot of strategic reasons to pick Ukraine for brinkmanship versus waiting.

My opinion is that yes Ukraine is the right place to fight Russia. Russia would take all of Europe if they could. History tells us that.

My big issue is you act like these things are obvious. But they are not obvious. And if we let Ukraine fall in 2022 there is a strong chance a test in the Baltics would come. And my guess when that day comes you would make the same argument. Russia wants the Baltics more and we should have never let them into NATO.

Maybe we should take a step back. What, exactly, is your position?

Do you want U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine? That's what I am calling "insane".

For myself, I've been extremely consistent in calling for a negotiated peace with Russia. In exchange for peace, I am willing to concede to Russia the territory they have already captured.

What downsides are you willing to accept? What personal sacrifices are you willing to make? Would you die for Ukraine? Sorry for asking so many questions, but your position seems so vague I can't argue against or for it.

Strawman. Russia isn’t offering peace for the territory they have already captured.

You either need to surrender likely all of Ukraine and hope Russia doesn’t want more or you need to escalate to deescalate.

To do that you need better weapons for Ukraine. Allowing strikes on military targets in Russia (staging grounds etc). Potentially formalizing western advisers and logistics. I would consider Polish/French troops in defensive operations. Both have shown some willingness.

I think those steps are necessary to minimize an exchange of nuclear weapons. It asserts the borders don’t change rules of the post-war era. Which limits nations like Estonia, Taiwan, Poland, Saudis, even Iran from going nuclear.

NATO forms a bright line that Russia knows it must never cross. Here is a map of NATO. Russia is encircled and powerless

I do not believe "encircled" means what you think it means. Without attacking NATO, Russia can move south through Georgia ("seeking" is not membership), Armenia, and Azerbaijan and keep going if it feels like getting into a conflict with Iran. And then there's that huge area of Russia not shown, which borders on other non-NATO countries. They could plow through the -stans to India, or go after Mongolia and China. No NATO there.

Azerbaijan is a Turkish client state, and NATO didn't exactly complain about Turkey helping Azerbaijan invade Artsakh in violation of a ceasefire nominally enforced by Russian peacekeepers and ethnically cleanse the territory.

If I am a paranoid Russian, I consider Azerbaijan part of NATO's encirclement of Russia.

If I am a paranoid Russian, I consider Azerbaijan part of NATO's encirclement of Russia.

As the story goes, you can consider a tail a leg but that don't make it so. Russia invading Azerbaijan does not trigger Article 5.

Where does this model of Russia even come from? The Ukrainian conflict has not exactly been a stunning success for Russia.

Now they're attacking India and China?

The whole Ukraine War rests on the faulty premise that Russia is so strong they'll invade Poland India if we don't stop them, but so weak that one more round of funding to Ukraine will win the war.

Personally, I don't really care as long as I'm not forced to participate. I'd especially appreciate it if more pro-war people actually volunteered for the Ukrainian military, or least the US one.

I believe the point is that it seems strange to call Russia "encircled" by NATO once you zoom the map out a bit.

With enough flexibility on a spherical planet, every region arguably encircles its inverse!

To be fair there's a pretty good pincer thing going on when you take the Arctic into consideration!

I'd agree that this style of map is probably the best balance, though I'm struggling somewhat to find a map in this style that is up-to-date.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats