site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12594 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also a big hint that the super-mega-hypersonic cruise missiles aren't actually in any state to be used as an actual threat. Correct escalation would have been blowing up the Ukrainian Congress building and saying "stop that", but obviously Russia can't.

Correct escalation would have been blowing up the Ukrainian Congress building and saying "stop that", but obviously Russia can't.

They've had the capability to blow up any building in Ukraine since day 1, if they expend enough missiles on it.

Do you remember when the Ukrainian legion was announced and a large compound in the West of Ukraine got bombed and it was only sheer luck that there weren't hundreds more dead ?

This guy who was there remembers.

What do you mean? Russia just hit Ukrainian power supply facilities (again) – if they wanted to blow up the Ukrainian Congress building they could have done so. But the Ukrainian energy grid and power production facilities – which Russia has, over the course of the last year, damaged to the point of reducing it to 50% of its prior energy generation capacity – is slightly more relevant to the war effort than the Verkhovna Rada.

The precedent against assassinating foreign heads of state is strong for a reason. It isn’t that hard for a competent government with a reasonable amount of funds (in the low tens of millions, ie. nothing for almost any state) to have someone killed. Therefore it’s not in anyone’s interest to engage in that kind of action.

Is there really a norm against killing foreign heads of state in war? It seems to me like this happens all the time.

When the US invades a country like Iraq and declines to kill their leader, one of the main strategic reasons for this decision is so that there exists a clear person with authority to surrender. Often, when a leader is killed without surrendering, the armed forces splinter into a variety of insurgent groups and there is no way to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the conlfict anymore.

This argument suggests that Putin would have a strategic reason to not kill Zelensky, but Zelensky has no corresponding interest in not killing Putin. My guess is that if Zelensky had the chance, he would definitely choose to kill Putin whether or not the US supported the decision.

Medvedev would likely not be any different from Putin, and Zelenskyy knows it. While Zelenskyy’s replacement would probably be more radical if anything.

Except it's not going to be Medvedev. Mishustin would become the acting president, and he's a bean counter extraordinaire, not a hawk looking for judeo-reptiloid Soros agents under his bed.

The US did try to kill Saddam though, and Saddam never bothered to surrender. When your tanks are rolling through Baghdad unmolested it was a pretty clear sign that his reign was over.

n the early morning of 19 March 2003, U.S. forces abandoned the plan for initial, non-nuclear decapitation strikes against 55 top Iraqi officials, in light of reports that Saddam Hussein was visiting his sons, Uday and Qusay, at Dora Farms, within the al-Dora farming community on the outskirts of Baghdad.[153] At approximately 04:42 Baghdad time,[154] two F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters from the 8th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron[155] dropped four enhanced, satellite-guided 2,000-pound GBU-27 'Bunker Busters' on the compound. Complementing the aerial bombardment were nearly 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from several ships, including the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Cowpens, credited with the first to strike,[156] Arleigh Burke-class destroyers USS Donald Cook and USS Porter, as well as two submarines in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.[157]

I also think (regardless of whether or not Putin has tried to kill Zelensky) that a lot of the weight of Ukraine's decision-making complex is now effectively outsourced to the West. Meaning that killing Zelensky doesn't necessarily impact Ukrainian C&C (although it might impact morale).

Russia has made multiple assassination attempts against Zelensky.

according to Ukraine with zero independent verification of any of this*

I looked for something akin to evidence beyond "Zelensky Aide claims X" and I couldn't find it. Is there actual evidence to support any of this or is every single one a "Ukrainian claims X" story?

Is there another country's media as clownish on the coverage of the Ukraine war as the UK's?

Putin’s control over various factions, especially early in the war with separatist militias, wagner and others in the fray, was tenuous. I question to what extent he authorized most of these attempts (and not because I ascribe to him any particular morality).

None of these factions had credible means to kill Zelensky. Doing it up close is an extremely hard suicidal special-forces operation.

Doing it by Iskander is plausible, but there's little evidence Iskander units take orders from anywhere else but Kremlin.

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