Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 52
- 1
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Suppose I oppose a Coalition of the Willing style invasion of Venezuela on the basis that it would turn into a massive mess, that resources are needed elsewhere, that the various tools available are ineffective for achieving objectives.
That doesn't make me pro-Maduro or pro-Venezuela. Both are bad. It's a very poorly run country exporting all kinds of problems. However, the right tools to fix the problem don't exist and using the wrong tools will make the situation worse. Have sanctions on Venezuela made anything better? No. There's good reason to think they've made things worse, driving up oil prices.
Likewise with Russia. We have tools like sanctions and military action. They don't work or require sacrifices that are not justified by the gains on offer. We shouldn't use them. What have we gotten? Economic problems in Europe, a wrecked and diminishing Ukraine, a lot of angry Russians. All of this was procured at considerable expense. Finland and Sweden were already in the Western camp, so having them in NATO is not terribly helpful.
Since everyone loves their WW2 metaphors with this conflict and 1938 can hardly be avoided in these discussions, let's think about the Stresa Front. The Allied Powers of WW1, Britain, France and Italy were working together. All were agreed that Hitler's Germany was a little too dangerous, they shouldn't be allowed to annex Austria and pursue dangerous revanchist tendencies. Then Italy decided to invade Ethiopia. Britain and France decided that they couldn't stand for this and imposed sanctions on Italy. This did nothing to help the Ethiopians who were ground down and annexed. Italy left the Stresa Front. Mussolini joined up with Hitler, giving him the greenlight to annex Austria and make lots more problems for the Allies.
If we're not willing to fight (and we're not because of Russia's H-bombs) then why go out of our way to cause problems for them? Do we want them to help China as much as possible in a future conflict? Do we want them to shovel heaps of weapons into any future invasions we launch? Do we want them to coup random African countries? The policies we've been pursuing are very unhelpful.
More options
Context Copy link