site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29964 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel does not do this. Instead they bomb women and children. You could not be any less western.

Bombing women and children has been a totally acceptable tactic utilized by Western militaries since at least World War 2, as you know. Was the United States not a Western country when it annihilated dozens of Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Or in Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Iraq, or Yugoslavia? And to be clear, this isn’t an “America Bad, therefore Israel also Bad” comparison. It’s just demonstrably true, as far as I can tell, that nothing Israel has done since October 7th is beyond the bounds of what any major Western military has done within our lifetimes, or would do if given a reason to.

Far from being a sign of how different and alien Israelis are compared to us, I think it actually just demonstrates that Israel is having to conquer its indigenous population in the age of social media and ubiquitous video cameras, whereas the United States had the luxury of having finished off the Amerindians long before anyone could have posted our atrocities on Twitter. (The Indians also didn’t have proper schools and hospitals to bomb, so the scale and optics of the destruction of their civilization was less photogenic.) Israel is the only significant modern example of a settler colonial state, which is a geopolitical model intimately familiar to the history of nearly every major Western country.

And the general western sentiment of bombing civilians today is that it is bad.

I'm not taking this comparison seriously. If you think Israel is acting western by repeating what every other western countries now count as dark periods of their respective histories I can only throw my hands in the air.

Western powers said: No more endless conquest, no more slavery, no more colonialism, no more bombing. We live in the present day and Israel needs to get with the program if they want to call themselves western. As I said before, the western response to a terror attack is not bombing but veneration for the outgroup that did it. Yes, in the past there would have been bombs, but we are not talking about acting western as the west was 100 years ago. These are moderns western standards being applied to Israel and Israel fails to meet them. By that token Israel is not acting western at all since you are not allowed to terrorize the defenseless little brownfolk anymore.

If you think Israel is acting western by repeating what every other western countries now count as dark periods of their respective histories I can only throw my hands in the air.

If the commancheria was a going concern, I guarantee you we would be doing it and not feeling guilty.

We don't bomb the drug cartels, and it's not obvious to me that they're less awful than the Commanche.

In addition to the cartels mostly hitting US citizens by collateral damage- and keeping the worst stuff in Latin America anyways- bombing the cartels and carrying out reprisals against their supporters wouldn’t be that unpopular.

The drug cartels, so far as I know, do not engage in their most brutal actions within the United States. And the brutal actions they do engage in within the United States are mostly against other criminals. Let a drug cartel raid The French Laundry and take scalps and see how long they survive.

A fair point, but the Commanche weren't taking scalps from the French Laundry either, were they?

The Cartels are extremely brutal, and their brutality has hit American citizens just on the other side of America's borders, and constantly hits the citizens of a close American ally. I grant that it's not a perfect comparison, but I think the OP's premise is questionable. We really have turned down the violence knob a whole lot in the last few decades.

A fair point, but the Commanche weren't taking scalps from the French Laundry either, were they?

They were attacking respectable Americans, if not the elite. I think a big reason the cartels keep their most brutal actions on the Mexican side is they don't want the US to come down on them.

what every other western countries now count as dark periods of their respective histories I can only throw my hands in the air.

Who in those countries thinks this? Shitlibs! Progs! Why are you echoing and reifying their moral framework? The periods you’re referring to were, by any measure I care about, the civilizational peak for the European diaspora. You get to live comfortably in the shadow of that era today, enjoying all of its myriad fruits and consequences, and you simultaneously get to be sanctimonious and squeamish about it because it happened before you were alive to have to watch the sausage get made in real time.

Western powers said: No more endless conquest, no more slavery, no more colonialism, no more bombing.

They were able to say that because they’d already gotten everything they needed out of those things. (Except for the times when they actually still needed to make exceptions - like, again, the many times the American military has reverted to the old civilian-bombing, city-leveling model within my lifetime.) Meanwhile, as I said, Israel is in a position where the old model is still the only realistic option for them, given their geopolitical position and what they’re trying to do. (i.e. secure and expand their settler-colonial ethnostate)

Look, I share your squeamishness about bombing women and children! I visited Japan just a few months ago, and I spent a couple of days in Hiroshima, including a visit to the Peace Memorial Museum. When I ponder what the Americans did not only to that city, but to dozens of other Japanese cities during the closing stages of the war, I too feel strongly the pull of the peacenik instinct. Once upon a time I would have happily declared myself a pacifist.

However, I eventually had to reckon with what the world would look like today if the Americans had just let the Indians share the continent, or if Japan had fought the U.S. to a stalemate as a result of the Americans deciding to only have “fair fights” where civilians weren’t targeted. Is that actually a better world? Surely for the people who ended up dead and maimed in our timeline, yes, that would have been preferable. Would it be better for their posterity today, though? I think it’s a pretty tough argument.

Certainly the Israelis seem to believe that the current spasm of barbarity is ultimately necessary to secure the prosperity of future Israeli generations, who will certainly look back on their grandparents’ generation with the same level of sanctimonious disgust you’re demonstrating now. Such is the inexorable cycle of progress.

Who in those countries thinks this? Shitlibs! Progs!

Don't do that.

I was expecting that. I figured I’d leave it in and take my chances. I don’t disagree, though.

Who in those countries thinks this? Shitlibs! Progs! Why are you echoing and reifying their moral framework?

The ruling class thinks this way. I am not reifying their moral framework, I'm describing it. If you want to play as a man against time do go ahead. Though I'd appreciate it if you did so relating to any other topic than this one. As it only serves to carve out an exception for a people who do not deserve it.

They were able to say that because they’d already gotten everything they needed out of those things.

The same impulse that guides the west today guided the colonial powers away from properly settling the lands and pushing the locals away. There is still plenty of resource to be had in every one of these places. And gathering it is still being hindered by the people who occupy the areas. To imagine that the decision to abandon fertile lands was taken because no one needed these resources anymore is silly. There was plenty of need and plenty of poverty to go around in the homelands. But that was also the case for the colonies. Which is why the people there weren't robbed and slaughtered but aided.

You're still playing with the same piece of yarn regardless of how far you drag its thread.

Certainly the Israelis seem to believe that the current spasm of barbarity is ultimately necessary to secure the prosperity of future Israeli generations, who will certainly look back on their grandparents’ generation with the same level of sanctimonious disgust you’re demonstrating now. Such is the inexorable cycle of progress.

I don't look back at the past with rose tinted glasses, imagining that the complete and utter failure of the past is somehow venerated by the same failure in the present, just because I happen to be alive. As if the two aren't holding hands. The moments in time you see as highs are the moments in time everything was fated to this point. If you don't like how things are today I'd ask you to take a more critical look at the past.

If you want to play as a man against time do go ahead. Though I'd appreciate it if you did so relating to any other topic than this one. As it only serves to carve out an exception for a people who do not deserve it.

Of all of the users on this forum, I think I’m one of the ones to whom this accusation applies the least. I’m on record here advocating for the racial partition of the United States, and for the reintroduction and expansion of public executions for a massively wide range of crimes. Whatever else you want to say about my worldview, I very obviously do not believe that only the Jews should be allowed to return to the tried-and-tested methods of the past.

The same impulse that guides the west today guided the colonial powers away from properly settling the lands and pushing the locals away. There is still plenty of resource to be had in every one of these places. And gathering it is still being hindered by the people who occupy the areas. To imagine that the decision to abandon fertile lands was taken because no one needed these resources anymore is silly.

All good points! I don’t dispute that the European powers could have been far more brutal and exterminationist than they were. Their sentimentality, for right or wrong, did prevent them from really going all the way, even though many of the peoples whom they conquered, if given the whip hand, would never have hesitated so.

I struggle a lot with whether I think “Western values” even refers to any real and reliably identifiable category at all - and, if so, what jettisoning such values would mean for the societies who supposedly believe in them today. Would I actually want to live in a society where the concept of “inalienable human rights” was abandoned? Sure, it’d certainly mean less homeless people in my neighborhood. Probably less disorder. Certainly less refugees and welfare recipients. What would be its other knock-on effects? To what extent are the soft-headed liberal values you’re decrying actually load-bearing cultural infrastructure underpinning the best parts of our society, versus simply luxury beliefs that could easily be discarded or de-emphasized without impacting the parts of my society that I care about? Certainly I personally don’t believe that every individual human life has significant intrinsic moral value. But do I want to live in a society where everyone in power agrees with me? I’m not actually certain.

Whatever else you want to say about my worldview, I very obviously do not believe that only the Jews should be allowed to return to the tried-and-tested methods of the past.

Then we can chalk it up to poor timing.

I don't know why you bother yourself with these questions. You don't need lofty universalist principles or imaginary rights to live. National Socialism works just fine. Direct the compassionate towards their own and you will never speak poorly of a 'liberal' again.

I struggle a lot with whether I think “Western values” even refers to any real and reliably identifiable category at all - and, if so, what jettisoning such values would mean for the societies who supposedly believe in them today. Would I actually want to live in a society where the concept of “inalienable human rights” was abandoned? Sure, it’d certainly mean less homeless people in my neighborhood. Probably less disorder. Certainly less refugees and welfare recipients. What would be its other knock-on effects? To what extent are the soft-headed liberal values you’re decrying actually load-bearing cultural infrastructure underpinning the best parts of our society, versus simply luxury beliefs that could easily be discarded or de-emphasized without impacting the parts of my society that I care about? Certainly I personally don’t believe that every individual human life has significant intrinsic moral value. But do I want to live in a society where everyone in power agrees with me? I’m not actually certain.

This section to me is particularly dangerous. You can't untangle "western values" from the societies that have been created by them and the benefits conferred to billions through that process. Many times when you pull on a few seemingly unrelated threads in a system it turns out that they were actually load bearing threads and the whole thing unravels. There is certainly a secret to western success, and a large part of it has been trust and cooperation beyond clan and family; if you abandon those values you're right back to it. It is all fun and games until you're the one up against the wall with no due process. Everyone always imagines they'll be the boot instead of the human face, most people don't end up being the boot.

When England led the world in coal and textile production, we proselytised for Free Trade. It became one of our great societal convictions, and as a country we became very rich.

Then the coal started running out and we didn’t have oil. Factories in other countries could take advantage of cheap labour and generous subsidies. And suddenly Free Trade meant globalisation hollowing out our economy.

Because the West is in many ways an ideological concept, and the US is an explicitly ideological state (reflected in the constitution), and because western countries have historically been rich and pleasant places to live, we have avoided asking ourselves if our ideologies caused our success or were contingent on it.

I don’t think we can assume that due process causes high trust societies (rather than vice versa), and that free markets produce prosperity. They may! But I’m not currently willing to take it as an axiom in the way that I was 20 years ago.

England was a trading empire long before coal and textiles. It was already very rich by Euro standards before the industrial revolution. It wasn't the coal and the textiles. It was the people and the culture that developed in a place that could only be reached and lived in with some expeditiousness.

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