site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27993 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.

Who knows. All those scenarios have risks for the most part of “something happens in Russia” and they decide to use nukes or an Ukraine collapse would trigger a dozen countries to get nukes.

The highest upside outcome would be US boots on the ground. Actually less insane that you make it sound. Outcomes

  1. 70% chance Putin sees that and immediately sues for peace. This actually provides Putin an out. Losing a war to Ukraine is disgraceful. Surrendering to the U.S. army is not disgraceful. No bullets get fired and lives are saved.

  2. 20-29% chance Putin is locked in and we get to see the liberation of Kuwait two. Few US casualties. American generals get to show off their toys and have a good time. China receives a strong message on Taiwan. America most comes together happy we slaughtered the dragon.

  3. Some percent chance tactical nukes are used. Low percent chance he tries nuking population cities.

These assumptions seem far to optimistic to me.

Russia is not some backwater country like Iraq. They were a superpower just 35 years ago. U.S. boots on the ground will mean tens of thousands of U.S. casualties at a minimum. It will also result in the destruction of the GPS satellite network, as well as likely disruptions to shipping and all sorts of other unknown consequences.

Your scenarios say there is a 90-99% probability that everything goes well. I would put scenario 1 at less than 10% and scenario 2 at about 10%. Russia is not going to simply surrender until they determine whether or not the U.S. military is a paper tiger. By the way, is it?

The most likely outcome would be large casualties on both sites. Assume 10,000+ NATO casualties and 100,000+ Russian ones. A nuclear exchange would be unlikely, but still a high enough probability to dominate any calculation of mean expected deaths.

Even a 1% chance of a nuclear exchange = 1 million deaths.

This is madness. People who want this war should go fight it in.

If E(death toll) is dominated by the small probability of nuclear armageddon in the way you say it is, then the people supporting the war from their armchairs have plenty of skin in the game.

Personally, I think my personal risk of being nuked in my bed is lower if NATO responds robustly to Russian aggression in Ukraine than if every tinpot country with a land border with Russia or China acquires nukes yesterday as a matter of basic national survival.

I am talking out of my ass of course. And would say you are doing likewise. Putting probabilities on things like this is an inexact science but my read on Russia has me in that camp.

Interesting though if the rest of my probabilities are correct a 1% chance of 100 million lives lost in a nuclear exchange added to my probabilities would still marginally favor American troops on the ground. Current war strategy on both sides of attritional warfare probably costs another 200-400k Ukranian lives and some multiple of that in Russian lives. Versus in my scenario the dominant probability is Russia backs down and sues for peace after a show of NATO force. The primary result of which would be Russia viewing Ukraine as no longer winnable.

Current war strategy on both sides of attritional warfare probably costs another 200-400k Ukranian lives and some multiple of that in Russian lives.

"some multiple"? That's retarded. It's Ukraine not letting its men out and catching them on streets, not Russia. It's Ukraine who asked "all for all" POWs swap. Given how slow fronts are moving, losses are probably close to 1"1

In case "Russia backs down" you do not consider a number of deaths in civil war in Russia, just NATO shows and everything becomes good and sweet?

Why is Russia having a civil war. I am not sure why I have to account for deaths in a war that hasn’t happened.

I support better guns for Ukraine so they can win the war faster with fewer casualties.

Russia is not having, but they will if what you see as most desirable outcome happens.

I support ignorant war-mongers like you to go in trenches and fight.

I am advocating for peace. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat this.

"beat them up so they would beg for peace" (with option: to show an example for all potential troublemakers) isn't exactly a peace position.

If you are going to trash an idea for peace you need to propose other actions that will result in peace.

It looks like you're using Ukraine's mobilization intensity as the sole factor of judging losses, without considering that Ukraine is a lot smaller and has a smaller mobilization pool in the first place.

It looks like you're missed sliders1234's point "some multiple" (again: SOME MULTIPLE) which and that it's easier to recruit people for defensive war which would have offset Russia's population advantage.

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