site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34147 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.

You've seemed to be a generally smart guy and good poster

Much appreciated (and you).

At no point in either the European or Pacific theaters were the Americans or Russians flailing about randomly. Throughout the process, they had specific aims and plans they were working towards. Their intention was to occupy Germany and Japan, and institute by force a government which they would sustain by force for however long it took for those nations to be trustworthy self-governing members of the international community again.

They definitely had plans, but I'm sure those plans were secondary to their prime objective (military victory). We'll never know, but I can't imagine that the allies would have stopped the war effort if for any reason they couldn't agree on what to do with Germany and Japan once they'd surrendered. Forcing surrender was the ultimate goal.

Importantly, the Allies understood that after victory, after surrender, they would take on responsibility for Japanese and German (and other national) civilian populations. They would take on responsibility for the administration of the territory, the provision of necessary goods, and the healing of the harms of the war. At no point was this in doubt. The Battle of the Bulge, won or lost, wouldn't have changed the intended outcome of the war for the Allies.

Israel has no intention of occupying Gaza and providing administration or aid to the population. They have no plan to institute a government, nor even a publicly stated outline of what an acceptable government would look like.

Maybe our disagreement is just semantic in nature (and I might have misunderstood some deliberate hyperbole), but I wouldn't equate Israel not wanting to administer Gaza as "random flailing". Their campaign definitely hasn't followed a straight line from A to B, which they bear a certain amount of responsibility for, but they've made strategic advances.

Their win conditions are something like Gazans stop hating us, unlikely to be advanced by their current strategy, or all the Gazans are dead, which they will presumably reach eventually though I doubt they've made significant progress towards extinction during the current war.

I don't agree with this. I think their win condition is that Hamas is largely neutralized (probably defined as breaking their organisational structure too much to be able to maintain truly operational as a coherent military entity) and that Israel control the main points that can be used to smuggle weapons back into Gaza, such as the Philadelphi corridor. At that point I imagine they'll leave Gazans to their own devices, conducting occasional raids like they do in the West Bank to stop any terrorist group that looks like it's building up too much power.

I don't see how anything beyond this, such as taking a more active hand in administering the region, is feasible. Even if we assume that Israel has the money and manpower to try and nation-build, it would be a diplomatic impossibility. Israel hasn't been in Gaza since the mid 2000s, and most of the world still thinks/acts as though Gaza has been under oppressive occupation for the last several decades. Imagine what would happen to their global reputation under an actual occupation. There would be constant protests or acts of rebellion and it's not hard to imagine how the international media/NGO complex would cover even the gentlest attempts to maintain order. So they would be forced to leave, at best putting Israel back where they were once the war had ended, at worst leaving Gaza with much of its infrastructure rebuilt and ready for use as military infrastructure by Hamas or a new terrorist group.

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