site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   35718 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Europeans have fought battles on battle fields for thousands of years with a strong aversion to harming civilians, punishing prisoners and acting in a non-chivalrous manor.

Since densely populated urban centres have become commonplace, how many Europeans have comported themselves in such a manner in wartime? There was plenty of deliberate bombing of exclusively civilian targets on the part of the Allies in the second world war, for example (Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Likewise the deliberate bombing of villages by Americans in the Vietnam war. Evidently this "cowardly and brutal" fighting style is not unique to Jews.

And that's not even addressing the obvious point, that civilian collateral damage is literally unavoidable when engaged in a conflict with a belligerent which employs guerrilla warfare tactics and uses civilians as human shields, fully anticipating - even hoping - that they will get caught in the crossfire.

Compare the British in Northern Ireland with the videos of IDF soldiers larping biblical genocides. The British stabilized northern ireland and effectively pacified it. They were not mass killing tens of thousands of civilians in a year, and Belfast isn't a smoking heap of rubble. Israeli politicians openly talk about moving large numbers of Palestinians to Europe and other countries in the middle east while blowing up all civilian infrastructure. The level of brutality is unusually high and gets a level of support from the leadership that is unprecedented.

Compare the British in Northern Ireland

You mean the British soldiers who opened fire on a peaceful protest completely without provocation, killing fourteen people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)) ? The British security apparatus which provided almost all of the resources to a paramilitary organisation on one side of the conflict, while British soldiers had an explicit policy of shooting members of opposing paramilitary organisations dead on sight? The British security apparatus which urged the members of a separate paramilitary organisation to assassinate the Irish Taoiseach?

"The British soldiers brought peace to Northern Ireland" is certainly not my understanding of the period 1960-98, some of which I lived through. I accept that the Troubles was a much less brutal conflict than the Israel-Palestine war (although I wouldn't say Israel is solely to blame for said brutality), but the British military and security apparatus deserve a great deal of the blame for needlessly escalating it.

14 deaths in Northern Ireland becomes so famous people know the story 53 years later. Israel kills hundreds of people a year during a peaceful year and tens of thousands during the war. The Gazan war had as many dead in a month as the troubles had in 30 years. It was about 360x more bloody.

The IRA was also significantly less bloodthirsty than Hamas, their goal was to maintain a low level insurgency until Britain ceded the six counties to the Republic of Ireland. Hamas by contrast wants the Jews wiped out.

You're also failing to take population into account. The current combined population of Israel, Palestine and the West Bank is about 15 million people. In 1948 it was about 2.2 million. Let's average that and say the combined population is 8.6 million in the period under discussion.

The Troubles were almost entirely confined to Northern Ireland, only occasionally spilling over into the Republic and the British mainland. To keep things fair, I'll exclude any deaths which took place outside of Northern Ireland, per this table. The population of Northern Ireland was 1.5 million in 1966 (when the Troubles began) and 1.7 million in 1998 (Good Friday Agreement), giving us an average of 1.6 million for the period.

  • 3,272 deaths against a population of 1.6 million = 214 deaths/100k

  • 100,000* deaths against a population of 8.6 million = 1,221 deaths/100k

So the Israel-Palestine conflict is only 6 times as bloody as the Troubles, not 360 times. And that isn't even taking timescale into account, as the Troubles went on for 32 years while the Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing in one form or another since 1948.

  • 3,532 deaths against a population of 1.6 million, over 32 years = 7.2 deaths/100k/year

  • 100,000* deaths against a population of 8.6 million, over 77 years = 16 deaths/100k/year

So only slightly more than twice as bloody as the Troubles.

*Roughly.

But by the same token, I'll note that Hamas claimed nearly half as many lives in one day (7/10) as the Troubles did in 30 years, almost all of whom were civilians. It seems to me that you're being rather selective in your condemnation.

First off the British military wasn't incompetent enough to get pwnd that hard. The Israelis were defending military outposts with hundreds of soldiers and got owned by men in sandals running over an open field. Of the 797 civilian casualties a large portion was killed by Israel blasting the area and preferring to kill civilians rather than letting them be taken prisoners. That is a civilian to military casualty rate well below two civilians killed by Hamas for every IDF soldier.

What is your basis for the claim that a large portion of those casualties were killed by the IDF?

Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki

None of these cities were purely civilian targets, particularly if you think military industry is fair game. Hiroshima was a Japanese army headquarters, and at Nagasaki the bomb detonated between an arsenal and an arms factory, while the Doolittle raid hit an aircraft carrier and various industrial targets (and also civilian buildings, but AFAIK the Raiders were not instructed to target e.g. schools). The Dresden bombing was planned to hit German industrial centers and a railroad yard - there were apparently some ancillary military assets there (such as barracks) but the real target was the military industrial center that was believed to be there.

Now, that being said, I tend to agree with your overall point - there's certainly a case to be made that these bombing raids were not proportionate and therefore not justified under the laws of war. But there were certainly military or at a minimum industrial targets relevant to the war effort at all four of those locations.

None of these cities were purely civilian targets, particularly if you think military industry is fair game.

So I guess the tunnel network under Gaza makes every inch of it a legitimate target for earthquake and bunker buster bombs.

Any strike on the tunnel network under Gaza would need to apply the principle of proportionality – same as the Allied bombing strikes on Japan. International law bans

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

I am not a lawyer but I think that in practice what this means is that if striking the tunnel network was sufficiently necessary to achieve Israel's goals, and it was also entirely colocated with orphanages, hospitals, and food banks, it would be justified to hit a food bank in order to strike the tunnel network. (Note also that as I understand it the Gazan combatants would have some duty to not entirely colocate their military equipment with orphanages, hospitals, and food banks.)

But on the other hand if Israel had the ability to strike the tunnel network and gain the same military advantage without striking an orphanage, hospital or food bank, they should take that option instead of the one that could reasonably be expected to kill civilians.

I have never seen a realistic suggestion for how to militarily destroy the tunnels without hitting said food bank etc. I've seen many suggestions by people who have watched too many Hollywood movies, though.

I don't have a strong opinion on the tunnel network, but it seemed like a helpful example to demonstrate proportionality.

None of these cities were purely civilian targets, particularly if you think military industry is fair game.

This is also true for Gaza.

Yes, I agree – Gaza, as a whole, is not a purely civilian target. This, at least in my estimation, does not mean that carpet bombing it is necessarily a proportionate response – particularly given that modern precision-guided weaponry and the lack of Gazan air defenses means that Israel faces a different calculus than the Allies did during World War Two (and even then, from what I know, I think you could reasonably argue at least some of the Allied bombing strikes weren't justified).

Note that I am not saying the Israelis have been carpet-bombing Gaza – I do not believe that to be a correct description of their actions. Just pointing out there's a material difference at play.

(and even then, from what I know, I think you could reasonably argue at least some of the Allied bombing strikes weren't justified)

This is the piece of the puzzle that I think you are missing. The bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and dozens of other strategic air raid targets are totally unjustifiable by modern standards. They fail the tests of both proportionality and distinction. Were we to be using the standards of the allies in WWII (which were still higher than the standards of the Axis) then Israel turning the Gaza strip to rubble with carpet bombing or nukes would be, if not justifiable, at least comfortably within the window of normality.

Dresden, perhaps. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki it depends on if you take into account that they won the damned war. Critics like to not count that part. If you balance Hiroshima and Nagasaki against continued conventional warfare to a conclusion, they look a lot more proportional.

won the damned war.

Under certain very soecific conditions: Japan must give Northern Territories, Korea, South Seas Mandate, Formosa, but gets to keep Hokkaido. His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor Syowa will lose power, but will not be tried, imprisoned, let alone murdered. Japanese people will not be enslaved.

Change any of these arbitrary conditions, and surrender comes at a different time. Perhaps if guarantees to the Emperor were less doubtful, only Hiroshima would be annihilated. If Potsdam declaration mentioned the Emperor by name as a war criminal, perhaps a couple of more cities would be irradiated.

These are largely quibbles, especially when applied to Hiroshima. The point is that weighing the civilian lives lost at Hiroshima against the immediate military advantage of destroying Hiroshima's military infrastructure rather than against the actual, plausible, objective of ending the war without a full-scale invasion is unreasonable.

I wouldn't count myself as a critic of the atomic bombings. It was a war crime in a war that was war crimes from beginning to end. Was it justifiable (in the moral sense) on the basis that not dropping the bombs would have resulted in ultimately a far worse outcome for all involved? Personally, I think so. But under the modern Law of Armed Conflict, such a bombing would not even be close to passing muster.

Sure, in hindsight it probably won the war, but all military acts are designed to win the war in some sense. That does not give all actors carte blanche to do anything they want on the basis that it may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Ostensibly, the military infrastructure of Hiroshima was the true target of the bombing. the ~100k collateral civilian deaths caused by the bomb would certainly not be considered proportional to the military value of destroying those enemy assets.

Yes, I think you are correct. But on the other hand, modern standards for warfare are much higher due to precision weapons. As you suggest, from what I understand Allied tactics in the Second World War were not unusual when contrasted with the Axis tactics.

Mind you, this isn't necessarily a moral justification for the actions - I just think it's important to understand that our standards are and should be higher because we can be more discriminating.

What is "proportionate" in this context? If I have 1 000 soldiers and the opponent has 10 000, then they kill 100 of mine, is it proportionate to kill 100 or 1 000 in response? Adjust as needed for civilian casualties.

From what I understand, there's no limitations in a time of war on striking enemy combatants. Although there are certainly political questions of proportionality, from what I understand under international law if I sink your rowboat you are entirely justified in sinking my aircraft carrier.

The question of proportionality kicks in when you're considering civilian collateral – so for instance you are probably not justified in nuking downtown Los Angeles to destroy a single military rowboat. But you probably would be justified in launching a conventional strike on San Diego to hit the military base there if it is calibrated to cause as few civilian casualties as possible while achieving its desired military effect.

Note that I am not a lawyer though.

Yes, that's exactly what it means. Now, how many civilian casualties are acceptable per military target is very wishy-washy, depending on the country and their situation, and for good reason! We don't want soldiers to say, "Well, per international law, if I have two civilians with me at all times (or five for two soldiers, nine for three, and scaling up), we're legally and/or doctrinaly unassailable."

It's a bad idea to impose a kill limit on your own troops

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