site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   31541 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Likelihood of genocide towards the mostly Assad-supporting minority groups? Alawites and Christians seem very vulnerable to militants with a serious chip on their shoulder.

I will be very surprised if there are any non-Sunni groups left in parts where they aren’t a solid demographic majority. And even in those areas they will survive likely only due to the communities organising for self-defence and Turkey’s control over the new Syrian government.

On Wikipedia (for what that's worth) the page for HTS says they've made some gestures towards tolerance for Christians and Druze.

If you can't trust those guys, whom can you trust?

If you can't trust those guys, whom can you trust?

Putin? ISIS? Bill Clinton?

Why is it America's responsibility to protect these groups?

You know what? Just once, I'd like to see Germany or France have a go at it.

Since that will never happen, more optimistically I'd hope the Alawites and Kurds can coordinate for their own defense in areas where they have a demographic plurality. Not sure about the Christians...

What did I say that sounded like ‘it’s America’s responsibility to intervene for humanitarian reasons’?

What did I say that sounded like...

Not sure about them, but I read your comment as a rhetorical question, not a request for information. My reading was:

  • (First comment): Trump wants isolationism.
  • (Imagined bridge): This is bad because...
  • (Your comment): It will increase the risk of genocide.
  • (Imagined conclusion) Therefore, we shouldn't do it.

leap_to_conclusion_mat.gif

You’ve been warned five times for this lazy chan impression. Stop it.

Sorry, I can't tell what you're trying to say. Your link appears to be broken, therefore I couldn't possibly draw any conclusions about your intentions.

Could you clearly and explicitly lay out every step of your reasoning, as is the standard in every discussion?

I think they meant to reference this https://tenor.com/bj47U.gif In the yeschad.jpg style to humorously say you shouldn't jump to conclusions, because they thought you were jumping to conclusions. Their mistakes were map instead of mat and confusing interpretation with jumping to conclusions.

American government supported the "moderate" head-chopper rebels, so responsibility would be under "you broke it, you bought it" clause.

No. Syrians have agency and are responsible for their own country.

This blinkered thinking would lead to permanent US involvement in Syria.

More importantly, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics is evil and you should be feel bad for espousing it.

It's "blinkered thinking" to think that a country has responsibility to limit damage it causes abroad? Nobody made US get involved under Obama but it did.

We limit damage by staying out.

You are justifying involvement today because of involvement (however minor) that occurred a decade ago. The same logic could be used to justify more involvement a decade from now, etc...''.

It didn't just occur a decade ago. US aircraft were even bombing Syrian army after Allepo was taken over.

It's "blinker thinking" to think that a country has responsibility to limit damage it causes abroad?

It is when you project damage it didn't cause onto the tab out of American ethnocentricism and a dismissal of the agency and ability of other actors.

It may be self-validating in a way to believe American power is central to the cause and outcomes in other conflicts, but the Americans were never the biggest player in the Syrian civil war, or the most decisive, or the most responsible. Americans are not the hyperagent of the Syrian Civil War. Americans were never the hyperagent of the Syrian Civil War.

'You broke it, you bought it' depends on 'you' actually being the agent to break it. 'You' did not.

Current sentiment online seems to be positive- Kurds and Christians seem generally pleased with the current shakeup, reports of minor rapport-building.

At this point, it seems to be a waiting game.

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