site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   31616 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apparently. And there's no doubt that weapons and intelligence were major contributions by the West, not to mention training in Western military doctrine over the past eight years, which also seems to have been really effective. But the Western world didn't unite to support Ukraine in every way. The West has carefully threaded the needle to prevent (1) arming Ukraine with weapons so long as it seemed plausible that they would surrender them to the Russians, and (2) an escalatory spiral into a hot war with NATO. The second in particular precluded Western boots on the ground and Western munitions capable of substantially longer range than HIMARS.

Very well, I concede 'every way' is incorrect. The west is not officially putting boots down on the ground (though I am sure there's plenty of veterans and consultants unofficially helping out), only the most important ways.

This really does not change what I said at all. Ukraine is getting immense amounts of incredibly important support. It's not standing on its own against the great beast.

Sure, but most of us thought at the outset that they'd lose despite international support... so the fact that they aren't losing, and are maybe even winning, is pretty surprising and speaks to their credit.

They've received a hell of a lot less international support than Afghanistan did over the course of twenty years and look how that turned out as soon as the US boots were off the ground...

I still think they'll lose! Just not quickly. I think Ukraine's loss will take multiple years, though it will not be a complete and total subjugation, and it will not involve Zelensky's death or imprisonment or exile. Russia is nothing if not beautifully self-destructive, and I trust the Russians to sacrifice their flesh and future in bloody droves on a war that was never going to be worth it.

Ukraine deserves a lot of credit. I'm fine with any non-nuclear outcome; I have no sentimental attachment to either nation, but I respect the willingness of both nations to bleed excessively for what they believe in. The only thing I disagree with is that Zelensky is any sort of hero; Zelensky is a would-be dictator who has opportunistically seized on a reckless gamble to purge domestic rivals and cement his influence for a long time. Whatever happens in Ukraine, Zelensky's future is comfortable; at this point, even if Ukraine loses, he'll be a hero welcome in any western nation.

Putin is not a good man. Most people agree on this. But just because he's anti-Putin doesn't mean Zelensky deserves the fawning praise he's getting from the admiring crowds worldwide ignoring what he's actually doing.

I think everyone is more forgiving of strongmen during a war footing. It's a tradition going all the way back to Cincinnatus if not further. US presidents are more constrained by a healthier and longer-lived set of institutions than Ukrainian presidents but even George W. Bush seemed beyond the reach of democratic accountability during the fever dream between 9/11 and maybe 2003-ish. Supreme Court jurisprudence on free speech naturally constricts during war footings and even tolerates physical internment of a particular ethnicity (Korematsu). So expecting Zelensky to remain an archon of robust liberal democracy when his country faces an existential threat from invasion probably isn't realistic. We'll have to judge his mettle on this score after the conflict abates.

So long as we acknowledge Zelensky is an anti-democratic strongman who has used the chaos of war to purge his political rivals, I'm content. If people want to cheer him on even then, well, their call.

Well, no -- if you drop the qualifier "during an existential threat from invasion" then it fundamentally changes the import of the accusation.

I reject the idea there's an existential threat. Ukraine has had pro-Russian leadership before and endured. I also reject the idea that being an anti-democratic strongman is bad unless you insist it really is a super mega important deal.

Well, at least we've narrowed our disagreement to a few key points, I suppose.

Zelensky is the only one standing against Putin. He might not be an ideal but then what about other leaders who only supported Putin? They must be even worse than Zelensky.

That doesn't follow unless your sole mark of a good person is "hates Putin". Not even all of Ukraine hates Putin!

I don't even think that he hates Putin. He only fights against his aggression while many western leaders supported him economically.

Okay, replace "hates Putin" with "fights Putin". My point is that I don't think you should base your perception of good leadership, bad leadership, corrupt leadership, etc., etc., on whether someone is with or against Putin. Putin is not the root of all evil and worthy of being the measure by which all else is judged.

Currently for Ukraine Putin's aggression in Ukraine is existential danger.

More comments

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