site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29665 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 16, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

South Africa was not facing existential threat from invading armies.

The Boer who have lived there for 400 years are effectively second class citizens.

France was not facing existential threat from invading armies.

They lost a part of France with a million ethnic French people that had been French for over a century.

Israel doesn't need (or use) nukes to subjugate a population. It can use nukes to mitigate existential threat from invading armies.

There won't be any, it will be death by a thousand cuts.

Unlike Rhodesia, the Israelis have nukes that can be used to mitigate existential threats from invading armies.

There was no vast army of tanks that rolled into Rhodesia. Rhodesia fell because it was being hit constantly by endless insurgency.

Israel is not an apartheid state in which a minority is attempting to rule over a much larger majority that dominates the demographics of the interior of the state

Over two million Palestinian citizens. Also much of Israel is within range of being engaged by Palestine. Even Houthis have hit Israel twice from 2000 km away. Thinking that Israel can just ignore a large group of people 10s of km away is naive.

sufficient strategic depth

West bank to the sea is 20+ km. That is minimal strategic depth.

which were not MAD contexts.

Israel isn't going to nuclearly destroy the west bank.

The Boer who have lived there for 400 years are effectively second class citizens.

And yet still exist, and were not facing existential risk from invading armies.

They lost a part of France with a million ethnic French people that had been French for over a century.

And yet still exist, and were not facing existential risk from invading armies.

There won't be any, it will be death by a thousand cuts.

States don't face existential threat from a thousand cuts.

When overwhelming damage approaches existential threats, the polities responsible remain vulnerable to nuclear weapons.

There was no vast army of tanks that rolled into Rhodesia. Rhodesia fell because it was being hit constantly by endless insurgency.

Supported by states that would have been vulnerable to nuclear weapons.

Over two million Palestinian citizens.

The ethnic Arab citizens of Israel are neither Palestinians in the political sense of the Palestinian movement, nor are they an occupied or suppressed majority population.

Also much of Israel is within range of being engaged by Palestine. Even Houthis have hit Israel twice from 2000 km away. Thinking that Israel can just ignore a large group of people 10s of km away is naive.

Being 10s of kms outside the state is still outside the state, which continues to invalidate your attempted analogies to African majority-suppression states contexts.

West bank to the sea is 20+ km. That is minimal strategic depth.

Minimal is not a rebuttal of sufficient.

Israel isn't going to nuclearly destroy the west bank.

Why not, if the alternative is existential end? What's the punishment supposed to be- death?

Nor does that change that the Crusades were not a MAD context.

And yet still exist, and were not facing existential risk from invading armies.

Israel could probably get a peacedeal with Hamas under the conditions the Boer were forced to accept. A large portion of white south africans were forced to leave.

States don't face existential threat from a thousand cuts.

Yes, that is what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa. It simply becomes impossible to have a functioning country in a constant state of war. Israel has a larger portion of its population mobilized than Ukraine, is deeply politically divided and is in a deep economic crisis.

Supported by states that would have been vulnerable to nuclear weapons.

Again, Israel isn't going to go nuclear for giving weapons. See Russia's response to Ukraine aid for example.

The ethnic Arab citizens of Israel are neither Palestinians in the political sense of the Palestinian movement, nor are they an occupied or suppressed majority population.

They are second class citizens in their own home.

Being 10s of kms outside the state is still outside the state, which continues to invalidate your attempted analogies to African majority-suppression states contexts.

Having two million people in the state and having the rest next door doesn't help more than gated communities in South Africa.

Why not, if the alternative is existential end?

Moving somewhere else. They are effectively a nomadic homeless people anyway. It is a far better end than having this endless conflict.

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