site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This just seems to kick it back up a layer. Why did they find themselves in such a position? Why did the Japanese egg on the ultranationalists? Why didn't Hitler dedicate himself to, I don't know, fertilizer research, or try literally any other solution than aggressive war against an unbeatable enemy? Or just mortgage himself to the gills to the bankers, who if memory serves didn't have much of a problem with him pre-war, use the money to finish climbing the tech tree, and THEN go all Mongol horde on his creditors?

And this presumes they thought the war was unwinnable, which is really not the impression I've gotten from what history I've read.

This requires a broader understanding of how both theatres were going, and more importantly, the political climates that led Germany and Japan to war in the first place. I will mainly talk about Japan here, as I think someone else can probably do a better job illustrating the particulars of Hitler’s views on lebensraum.

The Japanese knew they were engaging on a high-risk venture with little chance of success. But they had been forced into a corner by FDR's steel and oil embargos. It was either strike now, or be assassinated by the ultranationalists they had been egging on. We actually have the minutes from the last imperial council meeting where they made the final decision for war and they're quite clear on this.

In an attempt to be concise:

  • The Japanese civilian government has had been dominated by the IJA/IJN at that point, especially after the perceived failure of Taisho democracy in the early 1930s. This was not helped with the many assassinations (and many more attempted assassinations) of civilian officeholders by military staff; most notably, of PM Inukai in 1932 in the May 15th Incident. Further background to this: the Meiji restoration was led mainly by the daimyo and samurai military classes, and only were (relatively) discredited by the outcome of the Russo-Japanese war in the 1900s, which saw Japan winning but with the public broadly dissatisfied with its gains; as such, liberal-democratic norms in Japan were relatively superficial. This was exacerbated by (among many, many other things) that the Army and Navy had zero civilian oversight; the chain of command went straight to the Emperor, bypassing any civilian decision-making. The initial invasion of China was essentially a unilateral escalation by the IJA, with the civilian administration in Tokyo reluctantly being dragged along. (Conversely, the Army and Navy were also entirely separate from each other, and often at each others’ throats as well - each side would frequently assassinate officers and civilian supporters of the other side. Naturally, they also had different approaches to the war; the Army wanted to expand north into Siberia, while the Navy wanted to expand south.) In short, Japan’s militarists egged themselves on, no second party necessary.

  • Japan had been at war with China for more than 4 years at the point of the attack at Pearl Harbor; the principle reason for Japan to extend the war to Southeast Asian were to 1) block aid to China, and 2) procure resources for its war on the mainland. (They started by occupying French Indochina, which Vichy France under Nazi control ceded to Japan.) When the US retaliated by embargoing oil, the Japanese war machine (esp. navy) was stuck: they only had a very limited amount of oil left, and had to get it from somewhere (I believe the Manchurian deposits were not known at the time). One of the least bad ways they could think of out of the situation was to try to hamstring American force projection in the region, quickly occupy SEA, then hopefully try to sue for peace with the non-interventionist US; if that didn’t work out, at least it would have bought them time to dig in in the region. As far as desperate plans go it at least made sense for the IJN.

  • The Japanese war command, in its hubris (but also due to not really having suffered defeats at any point, and having already occupied Manchuria), really didn’t expect to be that bogged down in China. They expected the war to be over in a year with Chinese resistance collapsing quickly; instead they were stuck in a long, protracted war where they had trouble extending their control beyond the coast plus some supply lines into the interior.

  • The Japanese also thought that due to irreconcilable regional interests in Southeast Asia, the US, Britain, and Japan would have to come to blows at some point anyway, as Japan expanded its colonial empire.

Edit:formatting

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