site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34124 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

Because your denial is so weak, you appeal to a single CIA operation which was mostly executed by the South Vietnamese themselves;

No, that one single example is so strong that it is simply sufficient, all on its own, to refute your claim. Nothing else is needed, despite your denials. If you feel otherwise, we can go into all the other CIA assassinations - both failed and successful - and tally those up. Castro alone is like 8 times.

You are just playing dumb. You don't understand the difference between a firefight among insurgents and an occupying force, and car-bombing a Palestinian political writer? Or sending a mail-bomb to factory workers?

As I said, simply count how many instances in the list are the former and how many are the latter. I’ll grant you a few tens of the latter. Most of that list, and especially from 2000 onwards, is basically just some militant getting airstriked.

No, that one single example is so strong that it is simply sufficient, all on its own, to refute your claim

How is it a strong example when:

  • Assassination was not the objective of the operation
  • The violence which encroached on the borderline of "assassination" was perpetuated by the South Vietnamese themselves
  • The operation was disbanded after public outcry owing to the public opposition to the practice of assassination

The long history of the Zionist movement engaging in assassinations with car bombs, mail bombs, terrorist tactics as a matter of official policy for many decades absolutely stands out among European military history. It is not normal, or at least it was not until now.

Phoenix is a strong example because on its own it provides between hundreds to thousands of individual cases of central-example assassinations, which refutes any claim that similar Israeli actions could ever be unique. It’s also an example that you couldn’t possibly blame the Jews for. The specific perpetrators, official policy, subsequent public outrage or cessation of it don’t matter one way or another since my point isn’t “America bad”, it’s “assassinations aren’t uniquely Israeli”. Once again, the existence of the Order of Assassins should have been sufficient and obvious as well.

Do note that the only one doing any denial here is you. You’ve also ignored all other examples, I assume because they’re simply undeniable.

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