site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   25858 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 23, 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.

They'd totally make the mission of the original WASP Americans a complete failure in the game of life.

Without necessarily agreeing with the above post, yes, massive Irish, Italian, German etc immigration did irreparably change the character, culture and identity of the United States. Whether it was for better or worse is a question of opinion, but it did change.

Indeed. I don't at all dispute that it was a change, but it seems ridiculous to sit where the US is today and look back and see that as a failure.

Change is inevitable, static societies die. So too are societies that change too fast or in unwise ways.

the US as it was founded was killed, the Republic was killed, federalism was killed, and what was produced was Empire

no, it's not ridiculous to think this was "a failure"

Change is inevitable, static societies die. So too are societies that change too fast or in unwise ways.

trying to imply the US in <1850, pre mass german and irish immigration waves, was a "static society" is simply ridiculous

it's hard to think the US with its anglo stock and TFR >5 wouldn't have become a global juggernaut superpower without the mass immigration of Irish or Germans or the Ellis Islanders in 1890+, perhaps with a generation delay, but it's a counterfactual

no, it's not ridiculous to think this was "a failure"

If the current economic and cultural dominance of the US is a failure, then I cannot imagine what actual success might look like.

it's hard to think the US with its anglo stock and TFR >5 wouldn't have become a global juggernaut superpower without the mass immigration of Irish or Germans or the Ellis Islanders in 1890+, perhaps with a generation delay, but it's a counterfactual

A generation of delay would mean a generation too late to win WWII.

Germany would have formed a European empire if America didn’t halt the final progression of balance of power politics. Near-to-midterm utility would have probably been maximized but whose to tell the far term prognosis based on the butterfly effect.

Given how Germany did govern their (brief) empire, I suspect that isn't exactly a good thing.

WWI doesn't happen unless Britain thinks they have a US bailout. WWII doesn't happen without Americas WWI bailout...

Yeah, that's quite plausible. I regret getting into historical counterfactuals because the space of possibilities is too vast.

???

Britain doesn't think they have a US bailout in 1914. (The possibility doesn't come up until the Germans take up U-boat warfare.) All sides are expecting a war of maneuver similar to the Franco-Prussian war ended by a decisive battle within less than a year, which is a timescale where the US can't make a difference at all.

Regardless of who was influencing Britain in August 1914, we didn't start WW1 and couldn't have stopped it - based on the sequence of events in August 1914, the decision to fight is taken primarily by Russia and Germany, not Britain and France. Germany decides to go to war with Russia as a result of events following the Sarajevo assassination, and invades Russia's ally (France) first for tactical reasons. At the point where the British get to make a decision, it is a decision whether to join in the war or sit it out - German troops have already crossed the French border. You can claim that the French only go to war because they are expecting a British bailout (and had they had a choice, you would probably have been right), but France didn't get a choice in August 1914 either - they were invaded by Germany. Their choice had been taken when the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed in 1894, at a time when Britain was still (genuinely) neutral between the German-Austrian and Franco-Russian blocs.

If Britain doesn't join the Franco-Russian bloc, it isn't clear how this makes WW1 less likely. The basic logic that the decline of the Ottoman Empire was going to turn the Balkans into a zone of Great Power conflict was obvious since the early 19th century (the Crimean War was also fought over this issue) and the fact that this conflict would primarily be between Russia and Austria was already obvious by the time of the Crimean War in the 1850's (Austria doesn't join the Allies in the Crimean war because the Habsburgs' domestic position is still weak after the 1848 Hungarian Revolution). And the Franco-Russian and Austrian-German alliances, plus the Franco-German rivalry, mean that a Balkan war with Great Power involvement is expected to turn into a general European War, and all the Continental Great Powers made war plans on this basis. (The Schlieffen Plan for a German blitzkrieg against France while Russia is still mobilising is first drawn up in 1906, which is after the 1904 Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, but before the 1908 formal military alliance between Britain, France, and Russia.) If everyone expects a neutral Britain, Germany is more likely to win and therefor more likely to choose to invade France, not less. So the argument that anything Britain (or the US via their influence on Britain) could have done to prevent the war depends on the idea that we could have convinced Russia not to defend Serbia and de facto surrender the Balkans to Austria. (Britain did try to mediate between Russia, Austria, and Serbia, but Germany told Austria to reject this offer - the Central Powers were expecting to win and had very limited interest in a negotiated peace).

Amusingly, there is one American who definitely can be blamed for British involvement in WW1. Admiral Mahan wrote the seminal books on naval history which convinced the Kaiser to build a navy. Without a German navy, the British don't see Germany as hostile, and don't try to join an anti-German alliance.

I don't see a current world without US cultural and economic dominance given the population in the US, absent waves of Irish, German, or other Ellis Islanders, and the territory it conquered from the Atlantic to the Pacific (also before the waves of Irish, German, or other Ellis Islanders), and the context of their neighbors and large oceans on either side. You seem to think it's a necessary condition and I'm not sure why.

According to Americans at the time, success would likely look like a powerful and dominant nation of Americans which is full of Americans and their posterity under a particular social organization and a particular religion. The "America" as the Americans at the time thought of it was destroyed by the waves of mass European and especially Catholic immigration.

A generation of delay would mean a generation too late to win WWII.

you mean the generation which won WW1?

gosh, I wonder what would have been had the American generation which won ww1 not shown up and we didn't get the 1919 Treaty of Versailles

even if one views American involvement in WWII (or WWI) as a good thing, and I don't, I'm not sure what this short quip is supposed to show or support

even if one views American involvement in WWII (or WWI) as a good thing, and I don't, I'm not sure what this short quip is supposed to show or support

It's a fairly widespread view that the Germany and Japan of WWII were evil across a number of dimensions. Perhaps not universal, but almost so.

I am sympathetic to the view that perhaps the whole thing could have been avoided with a more statesmanlike resolution of WWI. To that extent that (perhaps) American involvement in the prosecution of WWI made a poor resolution more likely, I would be happy to say it was a bad thing.

The US coming to save the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Soviet Union puts that into context. Making the world safe for communism and plunging large portions of it under Soviet occupation was a bad thing and avoidable.

It's a fairly widespread view that the Germany and Japan of WWII were evil across a number of dimensions.

Oh, well I guess since it's a fairly widespread view then I guess that ends any thought or discussion about it.

Oh, well I guess since it's a fairly widespread view then I guess that ends any thought or discussion about it.

You're welcome to defend the governance of either Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany.

There is no end of thought on it, but come on -- if you want to take a shot at it, go ahead. Be sure to actually address the historical record of what those governments did, both domestically and abroad.

Making the world safe for communism and plunging large portions of it under Soviet occupation was a bad thing and avoidable.

Of course it was extremely unfortunate!

You're welcome to defend the governance of the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Soviet Union. [C]ome on -- if you want to take a shot at it, go ahead. Be sure to actually address the historical record of what those governments did, both domestically and abroad.

I don't think this exchange is going to be particularly interesting or productive. Neither of us appear to want to put forth anything but low-effort quips. Thanks for the dialogue!

What makes you think US TFR would've stayed high? Entirely possible a no-mass migration USA has a much, much smaller population, is majority minority(you know heritage americans are like forty percent black, right? Now add in the preexisting hispanics and natives in conquered territories), and has vast utterly undeveloped hinterlands.

TFR among Americans stayed high with mass migration because there was vast cheap land and no birth control. TFR among Americans remained high in areas of the country which didn't have big waves of immigration ( or at least that particular wave going to other parts at the same time). Pre-birth control and women's "liberation," I see no good reason to think mass migration had much of an effect on TFR of heritage Americans, let alone a significantly positive one. The US was regularly getting >30% population growth every 10 years before mass immigration (even removing immigrants), e.g., in the 1790-1820, the total number of new immigrants (not counting people who left), averaged around an estimated 180k total over 30 years while the total US population increased by over 5.5M, a gain of >245%.

Yes, it's entirely possible the US would have a lower population without the waves of immigrants in the 19th century. Maybe we'd have a population of only 200,000,000, still larger than the population the US had during WW2, and 1950, 1960, and 1970 when the US was hardly an undeveloped backwater.

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