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.

I did. The article seemed to check out, and I found the idea that multiple prime ministers would make a very risky trip into a place where their train might get bombed. (gee, we thought it was carrying munitions, sorry) just plain crazy.

Why would it benefit Russia to accidentally blow up Boris Johnson? Why would the Poles hate Russia less if Duda gets got? Why would the EU change their policy after he blows up a bunch of their diplomats?

I wouldn't doubt it was communicated backchannel to Russia, because they don't want to get into a thing with NATO either.

Why would it benefit Russia to accidentally blow up Boris Johnson?

Not Boris Johnson. Kaczynski, Fiala and Slovenian PM.

But given the performance of the Russian army so far, would you be willing to trust they'd refrain from shooting ?

Why even go into artillery range in a major war for .. no good reason, really.

into a thing with NATO either.

They'd say NATO prime ministers have no business being deep inside a country they're fighting with and that they could've just as easily met at the border.

Which is almost certainly what happened if you look at the alleged 'Kiev' station pictures..

Really, if you go into Kiev for a photo-op, why wouldn't you take picture at some minor landmark while you're there ? Or snap a picture in front of the presidential palace they say they visited? All we got was a very carefully composed group photo in front of a train, and photos from windowless meeting rooms.

Why even go into artillery range in a major war for .. no good reason, really.

The risk is realistically very low. Even presupposing that Russia isn't actively trying to avoid killing major NATO government ministers, my opinion, the risk that any random person in Kyiv gets got on any given day is exceedingly low. It's a city of millions that has suffered civilian casualties (and military casualties from indiscriminate air strikes/artillery bombardment) in the low thousands.

Against that very low risk is a very good photo op. For the first few guys to show up, they looked like brave heroes because it did seem very risky with bad information at the time. After that, it became increasingly important for everyone else to do it, because once someone else did it, it reflected poorly on you if you didn't.

They'd say NATO prime ministers have no business being deep inside a country they're fighting with and that they could've just as easily met at the border.

Really, if you go into Kiev for a photo-op, why wouldn't you take picture at some minor landmark while you're there ?

So which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either the Russians would want to kill the NATO potentates and claim it was an accident, hence they wouldn't take pictures at landmarks; or Russia doesn't want to kill them, in which case it isn't that dangerous to enter the country openly.

I tend towards the latter view. If anything, when Boris Johnson entered Kyiv he probably casts an aura of protection over the area he is in. The Russians benefit Zilch from killing a NATO minister.

the risk that any random person in Kyiv gets got on any given da

We're not talking about any random person, we're talking about a train.

Civilian trains in Ukraine have been hit because they apparently put military equipment on them and Russians really do not care to fall for that kind of ploy.

The Russians benefit Zilch from killing a NATO minister.

Well, you think so? Most Russians would be happy that has happened.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

They allegedly went into the fucking presidential palace, a distinctive building. Snapping a picture or better shooting a quick video in front of it while you are there is zero risk and would definitely prove they were there.

No picture. No video. No picture of them having been at Kiev train station either.

Also, it is not like Russia has history of performing successful precision attacks.

Why would it benefit Russia to accidentally blow up Boris Johnson? Why would the Poles hate Russia less if Duda gets got?

At least in my case, that would improve my opinion of Russia.

To be fair, when someone suggested Biden visit my first thought was "As long as Nancy and Kamala ride in the same car."

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