site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   31618 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.

They don’t get to just stop funding everything. Assume that pursuing the war is in US/NATO interest. Suppose they make a decision, and Zelensky (or whoever is also taking part on Ukrainian side) disagrees. They cannot just withdraw their funds and their support: this would damage Ukrainian’s strategic position, and reduce the chances of successful military outcomes. It would be cutting their noses to spite their faces.

This does not mean that they have no say in what Ukraine does. They do, but so do the Ukrainian rulers.

When Zelensky disagrees, Zelensky is out.

  • -10

That sounds like a testable hypothesis. Has Zelensky disagreed with the NATO line before?

Yes, multiple times.

"Close the sky", requests for jet fighters, tanks, more aggressive sanctions, long range missiles.

Ukraine also has made some aggressive moves at least not officially stamped by NATO like attacking targets within Russia itself.

Not on anything of significance, to my knowledge. The Ukrainian military command controls the guys with guns and is in direct communication with NATO at all times. If Zelensky decides he now wants to surrender, do you really think his NATO handlers would let him, or that the guys controlling the army will simply obey? The military has previously made decisions without his input, let alone consent

Not on anything of significance, to my knowledge.

Then you are not knowledgeable on this topic.

I think "significance" is doing all the work in that sentence. Anything they've disagreed cannot be of sufficient significance for NATO to stop supporting him, because NATO is still supporting him. QED

I recall a decent number of takes at different moments like "Wow, Zelensky is really going hard on criticizing NATO for not doing enough, they're gonna get sick of him any minute now and cut him off." And that hasn't happened, but to be fair there's probably a good amount of backchannel communication, posturing, and drafting off each other going on here. Z is probably happy to do Biden a solid by "forcing" him to agree to something, Biden is happy to let Z posture for the domestic audience even though Z knows he isn't getting F16s this year.

It started from

When Zelensky disagrees, Zelensky is out.

Zelensky asked for WW III (AKA "close the sky" AKA "no fly zone" AKA "NATO shots down Russian planes, bombs airports and Russia and runs SEAD/DEAD over Belarus and Russia").

I think that it is sufficient for rejection of "When Zelensky disagrees, Zelensky is out." and "Not on anything of significance"

Nice source!

Avoid low-effort sarcasm.

Zelensky demanded a no-fly-zone many times, and NATO clarified it won't do that, or confront the Russians directly with official NATO troops in other ways.

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