site banner
PaperclipPerfector  29d ago (text post)   33030 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 4, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Biden is now a lame duck President. What can he do to help secure his legacy in the small remaining time he has left? Here's a couple ideas:

  1. End the Ukraine War. The war is coming to end soon in the next year anyway (65% chance). Trump might get credit. Why not strike a deal now and make a bid for the Nobel Peace Prize? Obviously, there are pitfalls here. But in the end, it will be seen in the same light as U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Messy, but ultimately necessary. Normie-ish people are starting to reach the same conclustion.

  2. National parks. This is a common thing that Presidents do to secure their legacy. Biden is the first President not to create a new National Park since Truman. Surely they can dig one up (hopefully better than the St. Louis Arch).

  3. Move a department to the heartland. Move the Department of the Interior to... the interior. Build a new "Joseph Robinette Biden Building" for its HQ. This shows his commitment to the common people and sticks a finger in the eye of the DC insiders who shanked him. It also might take the wind out of the sails of the Republicans who would be more loathe to axe jobs in Kansas than in DC.

I hope he resists the urge to issue a bunch of unpopular ultra-left executive orders before he leaves. No doubt his staff will want him to do that, but ultimately this is going on his permanent record, not theirs.

On the other hand, Biden has a chance to soften and improve his reputation by doing something that is non-partisan and magnanimous. (Example: G. W. Bush helping to stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa).

What can he do to salvage what will no doubt be seen as a bottom-tier Presidency?

Why not strike a deal now and make a bid for the Nobel Peace Prize?

I was talking to my wife yesterday when I realized how cursed the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize will be if Trump manages to stop the war. Trump, Putin and Zelensky on the stage receiving their three-way award, one genuine smile and two very fake ones.

Nope, if Trump manages to stop the war, the Peace Prize will only be shared by two people.

It won't be Putin

What's the world in which Putin wins the prize for stopping the war that began as an invasion he ordered? Do aggressors usually get the prize along with resistors? (I mean, honestly, it seens weird for people on either side of a war to win a peace prize .)

Well, they already handed a Peace Prize out to Obama while the country he ran was simultaneously fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, so it seems that actively being involved in one or more wars is not considered a disqualification for the Peace Prize.

They gave it to Henry bloody Kissinger of all people!

In a way, Biden's legacy is Trump. He was the only one of three candidates to beat Trump, then he's forced out and endorses Kamala to spite the party bosses. (Saw some reporting out today supposedly confirming that this is why he endorsed Kamala.) Biden's whole presidency is defined as the Interregnum Trump. To a large extent his legacy is going to be remembered in the things he's already done, but all those things will be remembered as occurring between Trumps.

It would be hard for Biden to do anything that couldn't get undone by Trump, which also means that most of what Biden could do would be implicitly accepted by Trump. Actually, probably the biggest thing he could do for his legacy would be maintain a smooth and peaceful transition, and maybe even help Trump in a matter or two.

He can't do (1) because Putin knows that and so he's in a shit position to negotiate. You can't do anything where you want it more than the other guy.

I don’t think it’s clear to Putin at all that Trump will offer him a better deal than Biden. If Trump thinks he’s been shortchanged then he’s liable to reverse his position quickly.

That's surely true. But the point is that Trump will have the benefit of being able to walk away. If Biden decides that he wants a deal, he's got 60 days or so to nail it down.

I think the defining centerpoint of Biden's legacy will be choosing to run for re-election then dropping out after the first debate. Lots of other things happened in the world while Biden was nearby but that's the one where his personal actions had the most impact and where he most deviated from historical norms.

And I don't think he can redefine his legacy at this point. Nothing requiring physically moving or making anything could possibly be finished in time unless it was already started. Nothing requiring negotiation is going to succeed because there's no point in negotiating with him now. And anything that doesn't require negotiation will either be completely insignificant or immediately overturned by a Trump executive order. Maybe Biden will be nearby during some other significant thing in the next two months but otherwise I think his legacy is set.

Nothing.

He’s known he wouldn’t be president again since August. If he had an uncontroversial, good-vibes project in mind, why not start it earlier?

For 1, he’s not going to get anything resembling a compromise. Not without something bringing Putin to the table.

Trump has already tarred 3 for Democrats.

I guess digging up another park would be a decent option. It doesn’t involve him giving MAGA exactly what they want, though, so I assume it’s dead on arrival. Maybe that’s too pessimistic.

One thing that might be likely is for him to get to appoint a SCOTUS justice. Sotomayor could and probably should retire and let Biden appoint her replacement while the Democrats control the White House and Senate, since there's no telling how long it might be before they control both again. A quality pick would be a good legacy.

Could they get the new justice through in time? 56 days until the next Congress convenes. From Ginsburg's death to Barrett's confirmation was 38 days but from Breyer's announcement to Jackson's confirmation was 70. Biden would just about need someone ready to go already and then they could only lose one of Manchin or Sinema to still confirm the new nominee. Republicans would pull out all the stops and they don't have to delay things all that long, especially over the holidays and with the debt ceiling fight coming up too.

Edit: It would be quite a risk for Sotomayor to voluntarily step down at this point, and she may judge that it's less of a risk to stay in.

Sotomayor is 70.

With diabetes ...

Oops. That'll teach me to trust the Google summary.

Google summary is the most hallucinatory AI I've ever used. For topics on which I have any familiarity, it seems wrong more often than it is right. It sets off sanity check alarms way too often. I'm frankly shocked they thought it was in a state to put front and center on their primary product.

And, according to former staff, has poorly controlled diabetes.

She’s gonna pull an RBG isn’t she?

Trump would likely respond to this with a call the end the Senate filibuster.

If it were as simple as just ending the Ukraine War then he would have done it already. Every peace proposal I've seen ends with Ukraine ceding massive amounts of territory and agreeing to never engage in any kind of security agreement. In other words, give up a bunch of shit now, and leave the door open for another invasion when Russia gets around to it. These terms wouldn't be acceptable to Ukraine, wouldn't be acceptable to Biden, and wouldn't be acceptable to Trump. If Biden tried to end the war on these terms Trump would immediately excoriate him for being weak, and he'd be right. I think Trump has deluded himself into thinking he can sweet talk Putin into a deal that would be acceptable to Ukraine, or at lease so reasonable that Ukraine would lose international support if they didn't take it. It would be great if it were true, but I think the end result of any peace talks would be Trump coming home in disgust and urging congress to send more military aid to Ukraine, possible including the kind of offensive weapons that Biden has been reluctant to give.

As for the National Parks, all of the ones that have been designated since Clinton have been scraping the bottom of the barrel. Take New River Gorge for example. I go there at least once a year, but there isn't a ton to do unless you're running the river. the park only owns up to the top of the hill in most places, which means that most of the park is a steep mountainside that isn't really suitable for any kind of development. There's an overlook at the main visitor's center, a short hike along the rim, and a couple old mining sites with varying degrees of accessibility and preservation (e.g. Thurmond is accessible by car and has a well-done museum, while Lower Kaymoor requires descending 800 steps to the bottom of the gorge on foot, and is just old mine structures). There's some climbing, and probably a few more things I'm not familiar with, but that's it. It works as a National River or Recreation Area but not so much a park.

The only large tract of Federal land that's an obvious location for a National Park is the White Mountains in New Hampshire. The problem is that this is owned by the Forest Service, and transferring it to the Department of the Interior would result in a bitch fight over timber rights, mining rights, and all the other mixed-use things that aren't allowed in National Parks. Even in New River Gorge, they limited the park to a minority of the available acreage so that hunting would be able to continue. Hence, it's technically New River Gorge National Park and Preserve, with the park itself only being about 8% of the total unit. National Park designations also require the approval of congress, which isn't going to happen. See the ongoing fight over Bears Ears and Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monuments, which can be created by executive order. They keep getting expanded and pared back, but neither area has anywhere near the facilities for congress to just designate a new park and be done with it.

If Biden tried to end the war on these terms Trump would immediately excoriate him for being weak, and he'd be right.

What is the reality of Ukraine's position in the war? Is it in a strong position or a weak one? What is the reality of the US's position in Ukraine? Is it in a strong position or a weak one? What is the reality of Russia's position in the war? Is it in a strong position or a weak one?

Ukraine wants to retake their territory. Below is a war map. Ukraine has not had control of Donestk, Luhansk and Crimea since 2014. And everything not those areas, basically from Mariupol to Kherson, is separated from Ukraine by the Dnieper River. Ukraine has not taken much ground, when the US gave them a bunch of our equipment it did not move the needle. A lot of it got blown to bits. So a weak position to get what they want.

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375

The US wants Ukraine to retake their territory. And from the above, they are in a weak position as well. I do not see much of a will for escalation. It does not seem all of the sanctions crippled Russia. And from a strategic prospective, we have driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. I do think that we will get them into NATO if a deal is cut, but that is just my guess. So overall a weak position to get what we want, at least out of the war.

Originally it seemed that Russia wanted to either annex Ukraine or set up a puppet government, but now I think they're just trying to secure Crimea and get what as much pro Russia Ukrainian territory as they can. Looks like they are in a very strong position to do this, the have de facto accomplished this, so they are in a strong position.

So if the US and Ukraine are in a weak position, then accepting weak peace terms would be an acknowledgement of reality more than creation of it. Ukraine is going to lose territory, Russia is going to gain it, Joe Biden forcing a deal is just recognizing this fact. I don't see this war as in our interest, or at least in our interest at the price tag, so I think Joe should be weak and sign the deal. That is the right call for US interest, and we should work to drive the Russians and Chinese apart. Obviously team NATO would want the best possible deal they can get, but if they are in a weak position to take (retake) what they want by force then why would they be able to take it through negotiation? I don't think they could.

It would be great if it were true, but I think the end result of any peace talks would be Trump coming home in disgust and urging congress to send more military aid to Ukraine, possible including the kind of offensive weapons that Biden has been reluctant to give.

If you want peace, that would be a good result! I've never understood our constant policy of half-measures. If we're going to back Ukraine against Russia by providing weapons then we should be providing the best weapons and in quantity. Limiting our support just keeps the war going as long as possible. Do we want Ukraine to have a strong position or not? If not, then why supply weapons at all?

Okay, the answer to this is actually pretty simple.

In short, the fear of all the Western players is nuclear escalation. There are three ways this likely happens. One: Ukraine starts winning the war, and Putin is pushed into a corner. Two: Russia starts winning the war and gets too close to NATO countries, which leads to direct conflict with NATO, which Russia cannot hope to win without relying on nuclear weapons. Three: regime change in Russia. Putin is a known entity, but anyone who takes his place, especially in the context of a coup, would likely be more radical. Putin already keeps a lot of radicals around who are openly calling to use tactical nuclear weapons, and in a regime change scenario we have no idea who would end up on top.

Once you have this framework, everything NATO and the Biden admin has done is obvious. They can't let Russia win the war, but they also can't let Ukraine win the war. So what's the solution? Slowly degrade Russia's capacity in a way that doesn't destabilize the country, until eventually their economic and domestic issues become so serious that Putin thinks it's better to come to the negotiating table.

What are the problems with this? We're seeing them right now. Firstly, Russia is not as alone on the world stage as Western leaders thought. Putin has in fact built a coalition of autocratic states that are backing his play. North Korean arms and troops are now directly participating to cover the manpower losses in the Russian army. Iran likewise has fully aligned with Russia. This threatens to make the Ukraine war into a world war without the West changing their policies.

Second, the West does not understand the Russian people. Russia is perhaps the most fatalistic country in the world, and also one of the most resilient. The Russian people can handle a lot of suffering and punishment. Poorer Russians are quite happy to roll the dice as assault soldiers in a war where they will very likely die. For Westerners, a mortality rate of 5% in our military would be shocking - nobody would sign on. But a poor Russian with no other path to prosperity (many of them actual criminals freed from prison for this chance) will sign on to a 50% chance of death, shrug his soldiers and say "maybe I'll get lucky". Russians are also quite patriotic, and willing to suffer to see their country succeed. Combine this with the increasing levels of information control (it is, for instance, illegal in Russia to speak poorly of either the government or the military) and you'll see why there is no public outcry against the war - Putin's popularity has actually increased as the war drags on, despite signs that the Russian economy could well collapse within a year. In other words, there is no pressure on Putin to change. Quite the contrary, things really seem to be going his way.

Western countries, if they were able to continue the current levels of support, might have been able to continue the war at the current level for another year, at which point there's a real chance the Russian economy would fall apart. This was essentially the Biden strategy. However, Ukraine is almost at the end of it's rope. They cannot recruit enough to sustain the fight, as anyone who was going to volunteer did so two years ago. And many Western publics have gotten tired of spending boatloads of money on a strategy that has not been explained to them, that in fact looks like a black hole of taxpayer funds with no end in sight.

And so, I'm somewhat hopeful about Trump coming in. I think he can credibly threaten to change the status quo. The way I imagine it is: he proposes a cease-fire deal, which both Russia and Ukraine must refuse based on their geopolitical needs. Then, because Russia turned it down, this gives Trump carte blanche to increase support, not just in materiel but in the permission to strike into Russia that Biden has been refusing for the past two years. In other words, Trump may have the freedom to actually apply pressure to Putin in a way that the Biden alliance has steadfastly refused to do out of fear of escalation. I may be wrong, and Trump will swing the other way and force Ukraine to roll over and surrender. But I personally doubt it. I don't think he wants to go down as a deal-maker who lost a negotiation with Putin. I think he's fundamentally a bully, and will effectively use the power of the US to force Putin into a negotiation where Trump comes out looking like the winner. As far as I can tell, that's what the MAGA people mean by peace through strength.

Trump may have the freedom to actually apply pressure to Putin in a way that the Biden alliance has steadfastly refused to do out of fear of escalation.

Only Nixon could go to China....

despite signs that the Russian economy could well collapse within a year.

What signs?

According to the World Bank, Russia is now a high-income country. Real GDP per capita growth was at 3.6%! If an Australian politician could deliver that kind of growth, they'd be heralded as a living god and probably get Putin-level approval ratings (as opposed to negative approval ratings).

https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/leadership/directors/eds23/brief/russia-was-classified-as-high-income-country

https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/05/russia-war-income?lang=en

Even the Carnegie Endowment is struggling to find much bad to say about Russian wages growth. If Biden had delivered positive real wages growth over his term, I think he would still be in office today. Just look at the chart on page 25. Apparently the crushing impact of Western sanctions in 2022 was less harmful to the Russian worker than whatever was going on in America (or the UK, Germany, Australia...) with inflation. And in 2023 Russia left the US in the dust in real wages.

https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/%40dgreports/%40inst/documents/publication/wcms_908142.pdf

China's struggling, failing economy was massively outperforming the vibrant, dynamic US economy in 2022 and 2023, presumably it's still doing so. Real wages, real GDP per capita are rising much faster in China and Russia. They're rising from a lower basis level but are rising fast nonetheless. Yet all we see in newspapers and television is stories of disaster, stagnation and decline over there.

This data on US wages doesnt really match what the US numbers show. Real wage growth was slower under Biden than Trump, but definitely was positive in 2023 (perhaps not on 2022 but only as an artifact of stimulus). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q#0

Good question. Basically Russia has a war economy right now, and all the military production counts as GDP, which gives the impression of growth. This hides the issues in the economy.

Russia is facing down stagflation. Wages have been artificially inflated because military industries are being propped up, with the consequence that other industries have to match those salaries in order to find workers. This has led to acute labor shortages in many industries. Meanwhile the Ruble is facing serious inflation. The central bank has raised the key rate to 21%, the highest in modern history, but nominal inflation remains at 8-9%. Russia's trading partners are no longer as willing to accept payments in Rubles, for a while now the majority of trade with China has been in the Yuan and it's getting worse. Nobody wants to hold Rubles.

Though, I'm not an expert on the economic side of this problem. One of the sources I trust most on Russia-Ukraine is Anders Puck Nielsen, and he has a good breakdown here: https://www.logicofwar.com/russias-war-economy-is-unsustainable/

According to the World Bank, Russia is now a high-income country. Real GDP per capita growth was at 3.6%!

The World Bank also says that the year before, 2022, saw real GDP per capita decline of -2.2 %. And that for 2023 total GDP and GDP per capita were both lower than in 2022.

https://data.worldbank.org/country/russian-federation?view=chart

If an Australian politician could deliver that kind of growth, they'd be heralded as a living god and probably get Putin-level approval ratings

According to the World Bank Australia saw real GDP per capita growth in 2023 at 3%, and in 2022 it was at 4.3%.

If you're measuring the Russian economy in current USD, then sure there was a GDP per capita decline in 2023. But the Russian economy also apparently shrank about 40% from 2013 to 2016, an economic apocalypse comparable only to the 1990s. Exchange-rate games don't really matter for this.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=AU

I see 0.6% for 2023 and that's not even real growth, that's just nominal growth. We've been in per-capita recession for some time now.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/05/australias-per-capita-recession-worsens/

It's a cynical use of Ukraine to allow us to hurt Russia without declaring war. The well-being of Ukraine was never per se pertinent.

This is the sort of perspective I've heard from some of the 'end the war now' people in e.g. Trump's entourage, and I find it incredibly annoying, because it treats Ukraine as just some pawn instead of an independent country. It's the same perspective Putin has.

Simply look at what Ukrainian leaders are saying. They are the ones who will not accept a cease-fire without security guarantees, who have been pushing to take back their land and insisting on an eventual return to their internationally recognized borders. Do you honestly think they're just saying these things because Biden told them to? It's so demeaning to the Ukrainian people who are fighting for the independence of their country.

I hear people like Vivek Ramaswamy say things like "we need to come to a peace agreement that's good for both Russia and the United States" and I get so frustrated - the parties to the war are Russia and Ukraine! Ukrainians are the ones who will determine how far they are willing to go to protect their homeland and their people. If Western countries decide to withdraw support, that will affect the calculus of the Ukrainians as to what they can accomplish, but the decision is still theirs whether to keep fighting.

The choice is 100% up to Ukraine. It's a shit choice, since it's one of these Copenhagen interpretation of ethics choices, but it's still up to them:

  • you can refuse our help and lose to Russia quickly
  • you can accept our help and lose to Russia excruciatingly slowly and painfully. Maybe Russia will stop after a few years, who knows?

Is it moral to help someone a little if you can easily help them more? Well, states are amoral golems, so it's a moot question.

it treats Ukraine as just some pawn instead of an independent country

Well, you know, that doesn't bother me. I don't believe in countries (states). Literally, I don't believe that they exist. They're fictions, like corporations. Really it's a sort of theological idea.

I do believe in nations and to be charitable I can sub that word in. But in that case, from a secular perspective, it's not clear to me why one nation has a right to a piece of land and another doesn't. Where would such a right come from, if not the test of societal virtue that is war? And how sure are we that the ruling class of a nation actually represents that nation, rather than having parasitized it?

It's so demeaning to the Ukrainian people who are fighting for the independence of their country.

If they don't want to fight they can stop. Or, if the people want to stop but can't -- as is evidenced by their enslavement and sacrifice by the men calling themselves their leaders -- we should ask if perhaps that's the real problem!

Ukrainians are the ones who will determine how far they are willing to go to protect their homeland and their people.

It's not clear to me that the ruling society of Russia intends to harm either the land or the people. Actually I think it would be happiest keeping both wholly preserved (but under its own control).

Seems to me that what's going on here is that the land and peoples (the people living there are hardly homogeneous) exist and two competing ruling classes are vying for control over them. One is willing to enslave them and spend their lives to stay in power. The other is basically willing to do the same. It's not clear why either of those is 'right'.

I just don't know where everyone seems to be getting their sense of clear-cut moral stances from.

Definitely an interesting philosophical framing. The moral framework for me is something of a practical one - how can different nations live in the world with a minimum of morally despicable things taking place. Things like: war, slavery, poverty, oppression.

The goal of the 'rules-based international order' was to create rules for the game of international competition and cooperation where the morally worst actions are taken off the table. We don't go to war to settle disputes over who gets to control land and peoples (especially nuclear war) because it's something everyone wants to avoid. It's morally bad and it's practically bad, especially for those lands and peoples.

Russia is the clear bad actor in this framing. They are signed on to a ton of agreements that say 'we will not invade other countries to take their land' - the most fundamental being the UN charter, which says any UN member will respect the borders of the existing countries. This may seem arbitrary under your system, but it serves the very basic purpose of preventing war. It's not a complicated moral stance. If Russia hadn't invaded another country, there wouldn't be a war.

Hell, if Russian troops weren't blatantly and constantly committing war crimes, targeting civilians, indoctrinating the people of territories they've conquered... then maybe we in the West could ignore this as just another border dispute, like the other times in the 21st century Russia has invaded its neighbors. But, Russia is doing all these morally despicable things. They are the clear moral bad agent in almost every way, and are simply flaunting the fact that they can break international rules and norms, essentially do whatever the hell they please, because they have nuclear weapons so nobody will stop them. But whether this deserves punishment from the international community on a moral level is beside the point. This needs to be punished so that every other aggressive authoritarian government with delusions of grandeur doesn't do the same thing, and the whole world devolve back into war.

The moral framework for me is something of a practical one - how can different nations live in the world with a minimum of morally despicable things taking place. Things like: war, slavery, poverty, oppression.

Right, well, they can't. The incentives don't align that way and never will. It can be more or less overt, and more or less local, but it's going on somewhere. This is due to resource scarcity. Someone has to lose, and usually many people. Those with the ability to change this are better-served by winning, and arguably should. And even they can't change it much.

The goal of the 'rules-based international order' was to create rules for the game of international competition and cooperation where the morally worst actions are taken off the table. We don't go to war to settle disputes over who gets to control land and peoples (especially nuclear war) because it's something everyone wants to avoid. It's morally bad and it's practically bad, especially for those lands and peoples.

No, that's just what the most-powerful cabals at the time said to justify the cementing of their power into the foreseeable future. In fact they're plenty willing to do abhorrent things when it suits them.

Russia is the clear bad actor in this framing. They are signed on to a ton of agreements that say 'we will not invade other countries to take their land' - the most fundamental being the UN charter, which says any UN member will respect the borders of the existing countries. This may seem arbitrary under your system, but it serves the very basic purpose of preventing war.

Only the power of the hegemon prevents war. This is a symptom of that power failing, not a de novo source of evil.

Hell, if Russian troops weren't blatantly and constantly committing war crimes, targeting civilians, indoctrinating the people of territories they've conquered... then maybe we in the West could ignore this as just another border dispute, like the other times in the 21st century Russia has invaded its neighbors. But, Russia is doing all these morally despicable things. They are the clear moral bad agent in almost every way, and are simply flaunting the fact that they can break international rules and norms, essentially do whatever the hell they please, because they have nuclear weapons so nobody will stop them.

I think you'll find that we and our allies do all that stuff in spades. Who, whom.

This needs to be punished so that every other aggressive authoritarian government with delusions of grandeur doesn't do the same thing, and the whole world devolve back into war.

From the perspective of the hegemon, it needs to be punished to preserve the hegemony. The question is whether that's possible any longer.

War simply is. There are ways to sort of move it from one column into another on the ledger book but basically, given resource scarcity, this is just how things work. There is no other way. And a bad peace is worse than war.

You're just clearly factually wrong about this. The fact is that there have been no major wars in Europe since the creation of the rules-based order. In other words, when those countries played by the rules they've seen exactly the results they wanted: reduction in war, economic prosperity, global trade.

I think you'll find that we and our allies do all that stuff in spades.

This to me is proof that you're not arguing in good faith. Anyone who's given even a cursory look at the war crimes committed by Russia could never say something so ridiculous. It's just cynicism for cynicism's sake, untethered to reality.

There are ways to sort of move it from one column into another on the ledger book but basically, given resource scarcity, this is just how things work.

This is also obviously not true. International relations is not a zero-sum game. The global international order has decreased global poverty from 50% to about 10% in the last century. Who did they steal that prosperity from? Western countries, despite not going to war with each other, have grown wealth exponentially and raised the standard of living to the point where we no longer have extreme poverty at all. This myth of resource scarcity is not only foolish, it's dangerous, because it leads to bad ideas about policy.

I think you're just fundamentally incorrect about all these issues. Not meant as an attack, but you don't happen to be a communist do you?

More comments

and yet when people say that we shouldn't be doing it, the argument is that we've got to protect the poor Ukrainians. There's this maddening bullshit arbitrage between "protect the Ukrainians from the evil Russian Orcs", and "We should harm the Russians as much as possible, who cares what it costs the Ukranians."

Almost like some kind of motte and bailey?

Or that it's debates between large numbers of different people with different positions, even the people within the same coalition.

Just as governments aren't hive minds, neither are 'pro' or 'anti' camps. It's not a motte and bailey if person A takes position A and person B takes position B, even if B is better at some arguments than A (and often vice versa).

This has come up a few times, and the best anyone could come up with is "distributed motte and bailey". Calling it that is obviously unfair to a person being held to account for an argument they may not have made, but on the other hand, it's pretty goddamn frustrating to get mutually contradictory arguments from people sharing a coalition.

There's probably no solution but to recognize that the discourse is fucked.

You know when you’re watching a movie and a line of dialogue includes the title of the movie?

Same energy as this comment.

There's another level, which is that actually the thing I just said is the bailey and the real motte is spending money for the sake of it (for those who become enriched).

I have been repeatedly told by people arguing for support of Ukraine that our policy is and should be to drag the war out as long as possible to maximize harm to Russia. The fact that this also maximizes harm to Ukraine is waved off as Ukraine is volunteering for the honor. The fact that Ukraine is volunteering for the honor based on their belief that we will help them win, when in fact we have no intention of doing that is likewise dismissed.

And of course, actually providing them the resources needed to win, presuming those resources actually exist, risks escalating into direct warfare with a nuclear power.

This is most commonly raised as a counterpoint to "why are we spending so much in Ukraine, when {pet issue at home} is totally ignored!"

It's also maybe a compromise strategy to appese peaceniks, but this is frankly retarded as peaceniks are never appeased.

I at least fully advocate taking the risk of nuclear escalation, since the alternative (appeasement of nuclear threats) is far worse. This is unfortunately a hard sell to the American voter who cares more about culture war and gas prices. If Trump can make that sell, then I'll be impressed.

How large risk of nuclear escalation do you consider acceptable for returning Ukraine its full territory?

More risk than has been currently been taken.

After almost 3 years of frog boiling, there should have been 30+ escalations along the way that each on their own might receive nuclear responses but that altogether culminate in "there's so much US military involved that Russia loses everything".

Instead of properly following this frog boiling strategy, Biden had a bunch of red lines he wouldn't cross and stopped the boil at a simmer, defeating the whole point of the strategy. There should never be any red lines. At most there should be "don't do that yet" lines.

It took a whole two years to merely let Ukraine fire US supplied weapons offensively. This was not just on its own stupidly risk averse but more broadly demonstrates the failure to commit to the strategy, ultimately justifying the use of nuclear threats. The two year mark of frog boiling should at the very least have both the US air force and navy personnel directly involved, and probably even marines. By three years it should've been guaranteed to be over.

But, well, none of that was politically possible, or maybe Biden just didn't have the balls to do it. I will be pleasantly surprised if Trump escalates properly to give Ukraine the aid it needs to win and/or to get concessions out of Putin, but I'm not holding my breath.

More, in percent?

I don't know how to answer that.

It's not about maximizing harm to Russia. It's about harming Russia in a way that doesn't destabilize it. Western intelligence is terrified of the balkanization of Russia, because it has nuclear weapons stored all over the place, and even one ending up under the control of a lunatic would be enough to end the world. See also my comment one level up for my fuller thoughts.

well USSR already fragmented, with some balkanization, and then USA successfully lobbied for Ukraine and Kazakhstan to give up nuclear weapons they had, if they could do in then, why not now?

The USSR died a very slow death and the 'balkanization' that took place was primarily revolutionary independence movements. There were no radical idealogues seizing power, rather the people essentially rose up to throw off Russian rule. This would not be the case if Russia collapsed into civil war. Some regions (see Chechnya) are essentially run by warlords who are kept in check by Moscow giving them money. And Putin's cronies include many who have called for offensive use of tactical nuclear weapons, and in a civil war scenario they could easily come out on top.

The question, if you're the West, is to what extent you want to risk the literal end of humanity. At least that's how some people see it.

It would be chef's kiss if he could resign and make Kamala the first woman president. From my point of view, this would be great because it removes "make history and elect the first woman president" as a talking point in future elections. From Biden's view, it would have the appearance of making history and being magnanimous while in effect being an absolute humiliation and revenge.

I think Biden is quietly pretty mad at Harris for shanking him, especially now that she whiffed the election. I doubt he would agree to that.

It wouldn't be a favor to Harris, she would get all this press attention and have to smile for the press in order to get an absolutely empty gesture right after suffering an all-timer humiliating defeat. If Biden did it, the smart move for Harris would be to resign herself and pass the honor of first woman president to Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi is not in line for the job.

Woops, totally forgot it was already a Republican house.

Apparently she's already been the president, for a little over an hour when Biden was under for surgery.

We need more than that. She needs to be officially sworn in, get her portrait on the wall, be listed in the history books, etc.

And to fuck up all the "47" merch that was printed. Naturally.

Move a department to the heartland. Move the Department of the Interior to... the interior. Build a new "Joseph Robinette Biden Building" for its HQ. This shows his commitment to the common people and sticks a finger in the eye of the DC insiders who shanked him. It also might take the wind out of the sails of the Republicans who would be more loathe to axe jobs in Kansas than in DC.

This can't happen - particularly the construction of a new federal building - in less than like 3 years. No way on God's green earth a lame duck president could do it.

They could announce the move at least. What's Trump going to do - move it back to DC?

Of course, it might be hard to protect the name. The J. R. Biden building naming could get switched to the Trump Building. A better idea would be the "Cesar Chavez Building" which would pander to the wayward sheep who wandered from the flock in this election.

I don't think anything of the sort will happen. Biden and Kamala are way too chill and upbeat about this. I don't trust it. They are busy cooking up some Steele Dossier V2 or some new rule making red tape so that Trump will be tied up with bullshit for 4 straight years trying to unfuck their executive orders.

They are busy cooking up some Steele Dossier V2 or some new rule making red tape so that Trump will be tied up with bullshit for 4 straight years trying to unfuck their executive orders

They don’t need this, Trump will do it himself. There was a prescient story in 2018 or something like that where GOP operatives in the Trump White House said the thing they were most scared of was Dems swearing fealty to him, honoring him with big dinners and awards and speeches, calling him great, having big celebrities stop by and pay their respects, and then just quietly whispering in his ear that the people don’t really want all this right wing stuff, why not fire this guy and that guy and just do this and you’ll be loved etc.

And the sad thing, of course, is that it would completely work. Trump loved having Kim Kardashian in the White House. If Oprah and George Clooney and Obama come along and say how impressive he is and how presidential he is, and all he has to do is a couple small tweaks here and there, he’ll do it. The one thing he won’t budge on is tariffs. Everything else is malleable.

Apparently his chief of staff only agreed to take the job on the condition that she have strong power to vet who comes to visit him, precisely in order to avoid him being swung by flattery by the wrong people.

Sure, but he’s very online on Twitter, and if they tweet at him and he responds she’s not going to be able to stop him, at least not if she values her continued employment.

Any minute now, the Democrats will bend the knee to Donald Trump, their sworn enemy, tripping over themselves to recant each of their decade-long records of anti-Trump rhetoric, so they can tell him he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The likes of Oprah and George Clooney and Obama can surely overcome these unfavorable initial conditions to convince The Rockstar Formerly Known As Orange Bad Man that the people definitely don't care about that whole tidal wave of illegal immigrants thing that happened for the last few years. Taylor Swift will dramatically un-endorse Kamala Harris, acknowledge that he kinda had a fair point with the childless cat lady thing, and lay the groundwork for some progressive Supreme Court justice appointments. I bet Kathy Griffin will convince him that proudly holding his severed head on a magazine cover was actually a sign of respect.

Fortunately, JD Vance appears to have first dibs on this strategy, and seems more than willing to swallow his pride.

I’m not saying they will, most aren’t even remotely intelligent or cunning to do so. But if they could swallow their pride, it has much more of a chance of working than a lot of conservatives would like it to.

Man. I want to argue with you, but I think you enjoy being miserable.

It's a distinct possibility!

All of this is premised on the assumption that Biden is capable of exercising any agency of his own. One would like to imagine that the person or people who were calling the shots in the last two (three? four?) years have some kind of investment in Biden's legacy and might hence be motivated to do something nice for which Biden can get the credit, but I don't know if we have any good reason to believe that's the case. Probably the people calling the shots are some anonymous DNC staffers who have more important things to worry about, like making sure everyone knows that that Orange Man sure is Bad, huh?

Yeah, probably.

I think there's still a man inside their somewhere. I'm on the record saying that Biden's physical decline is worse than his mental decline based on my interactions with other older people with Parkinson's.

But, even in his prime, Biden was always kind of a non-entity who twisted with the political winds.

I just know that there's a window here and maybe there's someone on his staff with a whiff of guts and creativity. Who knows, maybe someone posts here, it gets tweeted by someone important and it reaches someone who matters? (<0.1% chance).

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