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.

Maybe not in so many words, but the line of logic of "we need to show the world that we are maximally willing to engage in war" can excuse literally any level of escalation, and used to reject any effort of diplomacy - which is what you're doing, here, with the by this point very predictable accusation of appeasement, since your history book ended at 1945.

This is not my position. You are mis characterizing my position and not correctly summarizing it.

I am in favor of a peace deal if Russia offered terms.

If you are in favour of a peace deal, why the constant bringing up of appeasement, Hitler, 1938, and so on? Are you just bringing them up cynically to win this argument, or do you genuinely believe that this situation is like 1938? And if it is, why do you now say you support a peace deal?

I would sign a peace deal tomorrow with Russia if they offered one.

Russia is not offering peace.

The only deal Russia seems to be offering is peace if you do it by force.

Again, I am asking - whither the comparison to the 1930s? If Putin is like Hitler, why accept a peace deal with him?

Where did I say Putin was Hitler?

If you don't believe there is any similarity between the two,then how is our situation like the 1930s? Why bring it up if you don't think it's similar?

They didn't offer terms exactly, but I am very confident that Russia would have accepted 'breakaway republics + Crimea + no NATO in Ukraine' prior to the invasion -- now they have all of that plus a bunch more, so any terms they might accept will be significantly worse for Ukraine.

'War is diplomacy by other means', so if you want to do diplomacy the time for it is before war. (assuming that you don't want war, which I'm pretty sure is not the case WRT the US State department and this particular war)

Let me get this straight. You think Russia went to war for what was already the status quo?

NATO for all intents and purposes no longer existed before the war. All the European land armies had been nearly completely disbanded. Hypothetically maybe Ukraine enters NATO in 20 years. Russia certainly could have asked for no on that, but it’s basically meaningless because NATO as a military force in Europe was disbanding.

Anyone who tries to claim the west is warmongering just makes these in my opinion wild assumptions that Russia had any interest in peace. It’s based on nothing.

I think that Russia did not particularly want to go to war, and would have been quite easily persuaded not to with concessions/guarantees (eg. recognition of their possession of Crimea/Donbass) that would not have been overly painful to anyone.

Nobody was prepared to facilitate this (particularly not the State Dept, probably because they kind of didwant Russia to go to war), and now the situation has changed such that Russia would probably require significantly more serious concessions to stop doing what they are doing.

That is just an opinion that does seem to differ with Russian actions.

does seem to differ with Russian actions.

Well it would, wouldn't it? Considering that 'facilitate negotiations to work things out non-violently' also differs from Western actions.

Explain?

When has the west done non-defensive violence? Are NATO troops in Russia?

Explain?

Nobody was prepared to facilitate this (particularly not the State Dept)

'facilitate negotiations to work things out non-violently' also differs from Western actions.

More comments

particularly not the State Dept, probably because they kind of didwant Russia to go to war

What's your source for that?

The way that they and the journalists that they feed with stories were pounding on the war drums from about Christmas on.

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