site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28486 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And my view on this, I argue with my zionist interlocutors about this all the time with regard to the current war in Gaza. Look, man, maybe you, as the Germans, you felt like you had to invade to the east. Maybe you thought that Stalin was such a threat or that if he launched a surprise attack and seized the oil fields in Romania, that you would now not have the fuel to actually respond and you'd be crippled and all of Europe would be under threat. And whatever it was, whatever it was, that, like, maybe you thought you had to do that, but at the end of the day, you launched that war with no plan to care for the millions and millions of civilians and prisoners of war that were going to come under your control, and millions of people died because of that. You can look at it and say, well, yeah.

It's amazing to me that the Jewish/Pro-Israel public hasn't begun to cotton on to how dangerous a game Israel is playing in Gaza right now, in terms of burning decades of carefully built up Holocaust credibility for the Jewish people. What we're seeing online is the anti-semitic right, the bogeyman that the ADL has been fearing for decades, successfully gaining rhetorical clout and likely converts by denouncing the obvious atrocities in Gaza. I find myself agreeing with a lot more posts by JQ posters than I would have before 10/7. And while I doubt I'll convert, a lot of people will. Burning that decades long project is a material cost of the war in Gaza that isn't being calculated.

denouncing the obvious atrocities in Gaza.

Can you list a few of these?

This is not a "shOw mE yeR fActs!" post. I am quite simply looking for basic data here.

Main stream outlets call someone having a bad hair day in Gaza an "atrocity', so I am hopeful the Motte can deliver actual data.

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/ISRAEL-PALESTINIANS/GAZA-HUNGER/myvmakwxrvr/

Cooper's argument is that Israel has taken on the responsibility to feed these people by removing any infrastructure to feed them and actively murdering those trying to deliver food supplies.

One hell of a bad hair day, if you ask me.

Again, wasn't try to be bait or be combative. Just looking for facts - which you have provided. Thank you.

I didn't take your post as bait. I think it's fairly obvious that bad things are happening in Gaza, some of them to good people, or at least to more or less neutral people. One can still argue that Gaza, and Gazans, "deserve" it, or that it is necessary, or at least that it is productive.

(I happen to believe that it isn't necessary, or even productive)

But it is beyond debate that bad things are happening, and that as a result of those bad things happening people are upset with Israel. Israel, and Jews in America, need to grope with that reality when making policies. Because people who are upset with Israel are going to start agreeing with people who have always hated Jews when they make the same points.

What is the actual number of starvation deaths. We’ve seen large scale famine deaths before, mountains of bloated and distended corpses, and everyone in Gaza has a smartphone - the evidence just isn’t there that large numbers of civilians are starving to death.

As far as I know it is not the responsibility of a belligerent in wartime to feed enemy civilians not under their direct control.

How are they not under Israel's direct control? There is no other government which exists and exercises any territorial control or monopoly on violence. Nor is it at all clear under what circumstances a new government could be formed that would be allowed to govern Gaza. If any citizen's committee of Gazans formed to try to function as a government in Gaza, it is not clear the Israelis would accept it, or would instead murder the leaders.

There is no other government which exists and exercises any territorial control or monopoly on violence.

Yes, Hamas is not technically a government. This is sophistry.

What territorial area does Hamas currently exercise government control over, with a monopoly on violence?

The tunnels?

Fair enough.

Israel clearly doesn’t have a monopoly on violence in Gaza either, or there wouldn’t still be very regular fighting.

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