site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28019 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 7, 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.

Then you had the Arab Spring, which succeeded only in ruining things and not increasing US power either.

I concur on a lot of the aforementioned U.S. foreign policy being a failure but think this veers into a Chomyskite type dismissal of anyone’s agency other than the U.S. government’s. The Arab Spring in Egypt and Syria began organically, as corrupt authoritarian states did not yet have a handle on the virality of social media. The U.S. government certainly picked sides, but I think it is unfair to treat this as the type of own-goal attempting the regime change and democratization on of Iraq was.

I think the aftermath is a complete loss. The Arab Spring wasn’t about democracy, it was an Islamist movement based in getting rid of the old guard who were largely secular socialists and nationalists. Our ignorance of the region and what these despots were holding back is obvious now and anyone familiar with the region and the history of could have easily told you that weakening these secular regimes is good optics and terrible policy. And where these despots were weakened or overthrown, we now have either outright Islamist governments or powerful military junta’s threatening jihad at either the secular government or the designated target of the Jews. But then again our midwits are not exactly scholars and were taken in by the optics that happened to coincide with their interpretation of the neo-liberal right side of history narrative that holds that humans all naturally are alike and think exactly like post-modern liberals and want nothing other than to join the Rules Based International Order and drink Starbucks and send their daughters to humanities programs at Evergreen.

To be blunt, my take on politics both domestic and international is Real Politick. You are a fool if you’re trying to govern based on delusions and fantasies about how you wish the world works. And you are a double fool if you’re misunderstanding human nature. We are not fundamentally good people, no one is. And pretending that if we just ignore reality hard enough we can wish ourselves to Utopia is just going to set everything back.

The Arab Spring wasn’t about democracy, it was an Islamist movement based in getting rid of the old guard who were largely secular socialists and nationalists.

Maybe democracy in the Middle East will naturally tend towards some form of Islamism and we just have to get over it?

Imagine if early Western democracy was under the watch of secular aliens searching for any sign of deviation from laicite. It'd never get off the ground because it'd permanently be at odds with the desires of the population.

Even granting that Islam is exceptional that's probably an argument for some role instead of continually trying to quash it. That may just radicalize Islamist parties into jihadis.

Yes, the midwit position of "let them have democracy and they'll converge on modern liberalism on some reasonable timescale" is ludicrous. But maybe they should just have democracy , damn what happens to the gays and women.

If any of these nations were at risk of spawning some Lee Kuan Yew-esque illiberal reformer or a liberal autocracy that could set the stage for liberal democracy it'd be one thing. But Egypt was corrupt and autocratic before Morsi and corrupt and autocratic after and all of this will almost certainly happen again.

or the designated target of the Jews

Yeah, you got me there. Democratic Islamic governments will have more issues with Israel.

Imagine if early Western democracy was under the watch of secular aliens searching for any sign of deviation from laicite. It'd never get off the ground because it'd permanently be at odds with the desires of the population.

Early western countries did not generally vote for confessionalist policies.

I have accepted that Islamist ideology is the natural bent of Islamic countries. What I do not accept is that we should allow a major portion f the globe to destabilize so they can have democracy. The results of supporting these popular movements is basically that the region is much more unstable, much less secular, and more likely to persecute women and minorities in their own countries and launch attacks against Israel. The result of democracy in Iraq was a radical Shia regime, not a Jeffersonian democracy.

I think any sane alien would be doing much like what I’m proposing. If the results of our democracy were constant attacks on other planets, murder of anyone who didn’t match our ideology, and destabilizing the rest of the galaxy, these aliens would not be in favor of us having a democracy. They’d much rather we were stable, peaceful, and under a dictatorship than that we’re attacking Alpha Centauri, killing Swedes and killing anyone who isn’t fitting in with religion.

The results of supporting these popular movements is basically that the region is much more unstable

The same region that erupted into flames due to the clear, unresolved dissatisfaction of its people not too long ago under the regimes you support?

Yeah, it's pretty unstable.

The result of democracy in Iraq was a radical Shia regime, not a Jeffersonian democracy.

I recall it was a bit bumpy after the French Revolution.

and more likely to persecute women and minorities in their own countries

As opposed to the autocrats who don't persecute people? I suppose wrecking half your country like Assad or shooting unarmed protestors like Sisi and the general jailing of dissidents and other features of autocratic regimes are okay so long as it doesn't have disparate impact on women?

And it's not like these places are good for things like sexual minorities or apostates either way.

This is what I mean; liberals lined up behind anti-Islamist forces but those forces don't ever seem to give way to liberalism or democracy. You just get more corrupt autocracy with seething dissatisfaction. You're not even protecting the groups you're talking about.

I’ll disagree with you on the point that the Arab Spring itself wasn’t about democracy. But as it was decentralized, it could only create a vacuum, and that then let groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, that had organization and structure, fill that vacuum.

I’ll disagree with you on the point that the Arab Spring itself wasn’t about democracy.

It was about poverty. Higher grain prices meant that for the first time a lot of people didn't had food security.

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