site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   34225 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.

So, the NATO-Russia prisoner swap is a done deal now.

On the one hand, prison swaps are a staple trope of the cold war. Instead of letting professional spies rot in prison, swapping them is a win-win.

On the other hand, this seems not what was happening here. Going through the list, you have:

  • Several Western citizens convicted of espionage and the like in Russia. Of course, there is official denial for several of them being spooks, not that this tells you anything.
  • Assorted opposition members. These were mostly people staying in Russia and engaging in activities which would risk their arrest. None of them seem of much geostrategic importance.
  • Rico Krieger, a German sentenced to death for carrying out sabotage for the Ukrainians in Belarus.
  • Vadim Krasikov, who shot a Chechen separatist/terrorist/jihadist in Berlin in broad daylight, and was caught and sentenced for murder.
  • The Dultsev[a] couple and Mikhail Mikushin, classic agents
  • Vladislav Klyushin and Roman Seleznev, hackers
  • Vadim Konoshchenok, circumventing export restrictions on military technology
  • Pavel Rubtsov, journalist and suspected spy

Some thoughts on this.

  • You generally want to get your real spies back. Trying to get back your people arrested on made-up espionage charges has the long term effect of getting more of your citizens arrested on made-up espionage charges.
  • Likewise, if you rescue innocent opposition members lingering in prison, you just increase the incentives for arresting innocent opposition members. In the rare case where an opposition member is of geostrategic importance, it is zero sum: the strategic value of Alexei Navalny would have been his ability to damage Putin. The only way such a deal could happen with rational actors is if both of them disagreed on that value, and kept disagreeing even after learning the value estimate of their enemy. (Or if the other side of the exchange was positive-sum).

With regard to Krieger, there are three possibilities. Either he is innocent, then trying to make concessions to get him back will just mean that more Germans will get arrested to serve as hostages. Or he is guilty and was carrying out sabotage for the Ukranians, in which case the negotiations should be left to the Ukranians. Or he is guilty but was acting on behalf of Germany. In that case, the German agencies have some serious explaining to do, but they might rationally want to get him back.

With regard to Krasikov, it is important to remember that Putin has been enacting murders (and attempts) in Europe with impunity, sometimes with flashy means such as Polonium-210 and neurotoxins. Sometimes an agent gets caught and convicted to life is literally one of the only drawbacks of that policy.

Now, it has been pointed out that his victim was a jihadist of the kind the West likes to eliminate with missile strikes, and it is hypocritical to cry foul on Russian assassinations but not Western ones. Honestly, I don't see it -- there are a few important differences between Ismail Haniyeh, recently killed by an Israeli missile strike, and Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, who was shot by Krasikov. For one thing, the latter was not running a terrorist organization from Berlin, and the chances to get the Germans to extradite him to Russia likely were much higher (back in 2019) than the chances of the Iranians extraditing the Hamas leader to Israel. Also, Germany does not have a history of providing short range missiles to the Baltic countries which these then routinely fire into Russia.

From a Great Game perspective, I think this exchange was a clear win for Putin. Apart from the agents exchanged on either side, he got his hitman back and paid for with a few domestic dissidents nobody cares about, plus the odd Westener taken hostage.

I think that there are two main reasons why he came out ahead on that deal. First, he can deploy much harsher punishments, thereby increasing the pressure for a diplomatic solution. Russian penal colonies are likely a bit harsher than German prison. The other reason is that as an absolute ruler, he has to cater less to public opinion (even though he did get great photo ops out of it). If some Russian citizen is sentenced to death in some shithole country with a terrible human rights record, Putin can just sit this out and tell the media to burry the story. If a German citizen is sentenced to death in Belarus, Scholz can not simply state his objection, but also indicate an unwillingness to make any deals because this would make Germany vulnerable to all sorts of blackmail and thus be bad policy, because the average voter does not understand this.

I am looking forward to other countries like Iran or the Taliban regime trying this. "That bomb-throwing jihadist you have in prison? We really like him back. In exchange, we offer you a bunch of women who were sentenced to death for violating Sharia law, plus the your odd citizen we captured."

From a Great Game perspective, I think this exchange was a clear win for Putin. Apart from the agents exchanged on either side, he got his hitman back and paid for with a few domestic dissidents nobody cares about, plus the odd Westener taken hostage.

Highly agree. This seems like a near total disaster for the US and NATO. Russia gets real assets back and NATO got some idiots and Russia's political version of the Washington Generals.

From a cursory glance, Russia imprisons western nobodies on trumped up charges just to have something to trade in these exchanges. Bad incentives to keep trading for them.

Let's be real, any competent spy who got captured looks like a nobody NGO employee who got got on trumped up charges.

If they have a few agents in the lot they should be trading and not telling you which is which.

And that goes for the Russians as well, who will also pretend all theirs are honest businessmen the West unjustly imprisoned for no reason.

Everyone is lying, but I like to believe in the funniest theory which is that everyone involved is actually innocent and these are bouts of mutual paranoia.

Let's be real, any competent spy who got captured looks like a nobody NGO employee who got got on trumped up charges.

Right. Particularly since the people who caught them are unlikely to reveal the methods by which they did so.

Do you really think the CIA is going to admit that they were spies?

Israel has set the bar for bad prisoner exchange deals so low that this feels like a glorious victory in comparison.

You don’t have to win every trade when you’re already way ahead.

and neurotoxins.

At 16:15 an emergency services call reported that a man and woman, later identified as Sergei and Yulia, had been found unconscious on a public bench in the centre of Salisbury by the passing Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army and her daughter.[b][34][35][36] An eyewitness saw the woman foaming at the mouth with her eyes wide open but completely white.[34] According to a later British government statement they were "slipping in and out of consciousness on a public bench".[37]

There's no need to point out other absurdities with the plot here- if you want, see e.g. this summary, the odds of getting contaminated with a nerve agent at your home, then going for dinner, somehow being fine for 2 hours, then passing out and then being found by probably one the highest ranking military officers qualified to deal with nerve agents. Those are absurd odds and nothing about the affair makes any sense at all.

nothing about the affair makes any sense at all.

From the standpoint of “cui bono” it makes sense. Russians willingly swapped Skripal for their own spies. If Russia wants to do spy swaps in the future (like yesterday?) it is in their interest to not kill the spies the swap. It is especially not in their interest to attempt to kill them on foreign soil using neurotoxins that trace back to Russia and few other places, using known FSB members in the vicinity. This harms their relationship with Europe when their geopolitical interest is to cozy up with Germany. Would anyone with a 105iq really think that the UK wouldn’t test this guy for toxins when he dies (or suffers)? Now let’s consider that intelligence agencies are run by 140+ iq realpolitik wizards who are specifically trained in out-of-the-box thinking and a century long tradition of psychological operations. And then let’s factor for “cui bono”. For British intelligence, poisoning Skripal is beneficial in a few ways: it makes Russia off as a pariah state, hence reducing their influence in continental Europe and abroad, and it increases the public’s distaste for Russia, which may be important come an eventual and long-predicted conflict over Ukraine. There is little risk in ever getting caught because the area in which the poisoning occurred is surveilled heavily by British intelligence, and anyone who asks “false flag?” will be ridiculed, let alone given no platform in popular media.

It is especially not in their interest to attempt to kill them on foreign soil using neurotoxins that trace back to Russia and few other places, using known FSB members in the vicinity.

You realize that Soviet intelligence has previously killed people on foreign soil with weird poisons, right? It's basically a known MO at this point.

This harms their relationship with Europe when their geopolitical interest is to cozy up with Germany.

Russia's geopolitical interest is to bring all their European neighbors into the fold, but the best they can do is invade Ukraine and alienate said neighbors. We're not dealing with a hypercompetent foreign ministry here.

And? Everyone has people killed.

Pretty sure Americans have killed people with weird poisons too. Why do you think CIA had a 'heart attack' gun showed off during the Church Committee hearings?

I'm not disputing that Russia kills people in weird ways that include poison - I'm disputing that it makes sense in this concrete sense. Because it doesn't.

The other notorious case of Litvinenko - the guy was seen as a traitor, but one who run away and wasn't swapped. And who instead of being quiet in his exile or at least low profile published very incendiary and probably nonsensical information of the type "Putin is a pedophile" / Russia trained Al-Qaeda etc.

We're not dealing with a hypercompetent foreign ministry here.

They presented Putin with a choice:

  1. watch Ukraine smash the separatists, greatly angering Russian opposition thus making Russian internal politics worse and humiliating Russia by painting it as inactive and weak. Ukraine

  2. go to war and force Ukraine to see sense.

Why do you think CIA had a 'heart attack' gun showed off during the Church Committee hearings?

The heart attack gun was probably bullshit. It's unlikely that a small projectile like that would be ballistically stable while remaining frozen and being able to penetrate clothing.

The other notorious case of Litvinenko - the guy was seen as a traitor, but one who run away and wasn't swapped.

Well, there's a few reasons the British didn't swap him.

  1. He's a British citizen

  2. He's not imprisoned

  3. He's been dead 18 years

go to war and force Ukraine to see sense.

So far Ukraine has not seen sense. I am sure it will be great when they, best case scenario, annex the smouldering ruin that will be Ukraine after the war.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat that there is in fact a third option, which is to be a more compelling geopolitical partner than the US. However, as I said, this is beyond the ken of the Russian foreign ministry.

With regard to Krieger, there are three possibilities. Either he is innocent, then trying to make concessions to get him back will just mean that more Germans will get arrested to serve as hostages. Or he is guilty and was carrying out sabotage for the Ukranians, in which case the negotiations should be left to the Ukranians. Or he is guilty but was acting on behalf of Germany. In that case, the German agencies have some serious explaining to do, but they might rationally want to get him back.

I would guess that the "he was acting on behalf of Ukraine" story is correct, but Ukraine is not about to burn any trump cards on rescuing impressionable Germans (who I have anecdotal evidence Ukrainians mostly only feel disdain for) and as long as it is essentially German government policy to gently encourage its citizens to make sacrifices for Ukraine that go above and beyond what they feel they can defend as official policy, it would be counterproductive for them to not take the opportunity to bail him out.

For one thing, the latter was not running a terrorist organization from Berlin, and the chances to get the Germans to extradite him to Russia likely were much higher (back in 2019) than the chances of the Iranians extraditing the Hamas leader to Israel.

Sure, but this is already a low bar. Chechens (who even the SJW contingent of Western Europe seems to need to hold their noses about) are one thing, but Khangoshvili had aligned himself with the pro-European forces in Georgia, who continue to be the EU's baby; his likelihood of extradition would have been in the ballpark of that of the US extraditing some Chinese dissidents to the PRC.

For one thing, the latter was not running a terrorist organization from Berlin

I have heard some rumours that he continued supporting (materially? ideologically?) the Caucasus Emirate which is generally recognised as one, though this is one of those cases where it's impossible to discern what portion of claims/counterclaims/debunkings is credible.

All in all, I do agree that Putin comes out looking like the winner here to an extent that makes me wonder what was in it for the Western side. Are they hoping that they could reanimate the white-blue-white-flag exile opposition with the emergency injection of Kara-Murza? Was there some secret addendum with further favours that are not being made public for PR reasons (e.g. Russia releasing more valuable spooks or unambiguous terrorists)? Is this meant to establish goodwill for future trades (e.g. Griner)?

as long as it is essentially German government policy to gently encourage its citizens to make sacrifices for Ukraine that go above and beyond what they feel they can defend as official policy, it would be counterproductive for them to not take the opportunity to bail him out.

As a German, I generally value Russian hitman being in prison where they belong above rescuing people playing spy for third countries and failing. I mean, if he had been caught during a scheme to kill Putin, then that would be something within German geostrategic interest, and it would be in Germany's interests to bring him back. Doing a bit of sabotage to hamper their war effort feels rather minor by comparison.

Right, assuming there were not in fact hidden additional elements, this trade does of course look flat out disadvantageous to Germany. I'm just trying to argue that the Germans did get something out of it (standing by conspicuously doing nothing as the US bails all of its citizens in trouble in the Eastern Bloc out might also be a bad look, and German media sure seemed to be fixated on the guy for several days/weeks before the trade while the hitman's release is already being buried). Ultimately, such is the life of the vassal; sometimes you have to humiliate yourself to help your master save face.

All in all, I do agree that Putin comes out looking like the winner here to an extent that makes me wonder what was in it for the Western side.

Return of reporters in exchange for support of Harris.

So, we should expect a column from Evan Gershkovich in support of Harris?

No need for them to be that obvious about it. Just more favorable coverage from the WSJ in general.

Pay attention kids, that's how a pro traps his prior.

That's how a pro avoid an obvious gotcha.

It's not a gotcha to expect beliefs to interface with reality in an observable way.

It's certainly a gotcha for you to make a prediction on my behalf.

More comments

Are you positing a counterfactual timeline in which journalists conclude that whatever the alternative to Harris is acceptable for them, and have enough class consciousness and coordination to punish the establishment by tanking her because they wouldn't protect one of their own?

One of the reporters was from the Wall Street Journal, which is less hostile to Trump than the usual mainstream publication. Keeping them on-side may well have been a goal.

I suspect that the DNC is really up its own asshole enough to believe such a thing, even if it's very likely not true.

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