site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   23941 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

if I was to characterize the transatlantic alliance from 1975, it would be something along the lines of 'the Americans bribed the Europeans to be the front line fodder in a war with the Soviet Union.' Yes, it was in the Americans own interest to fight with the Europeans to prevent Soviet domination of Eurasia, but the Americans were paying for strategic deference (such as via the Marshal Plan and establishing favorable trade flows / market access for the Europeans), and the Europeans were the ones who would be the front line shield

I think one would be hard-pressed to come up with a more absurd characterization of the NATO alliance, at any point from April 4th, 1949 until now, as "Europeans were going to be the front line shield, and Americans were going to bribe them to do so," implying that the entire European continent wasn't a target of Soviet expansion from the second Berlin fell, and that Europeans would otherwise had the option of sitting out the Cold War, were it not for Americans sweetening the deal.

We were always going to be the shield to protect Europe from being overrun by the Soviets, and at most, we planned for some material support from our allies, but there was never, at any point, a belief that Europeans would be doing the heavy lifting. None.

but there was never, at any point, a belief that Europeans would be doing the heavy lifting. None.

I don't know about this; the whole idea of NATO came about in part because the aftermath of WWII made it clear that lots of Europeans, East or West, were not yet so tired of war that literally nobody was willing to pick up a rifle or drive a tank. Just a few years afterwards, European and British troops came along with us Americans to go push North Korea's shit in for a little while, AIUI.

NATO came about because:

  1. Everyone understood that the Soviet Union had designs on all of Europe; they were not going to mind their own business and co-exist with the West
  2. It was not in the interest of the United States to have a Soviet-domniated Europe
  3. Europe had no hope of resisting a Soviet invasion, individually, or collectively

This is why the US had bases, and large numbers of forces, stationed throughout Europe. This is why the OPLANS all have the US being in command of the combined militaries, and why they assume the US would be providing the lion's share of forces in the event of a Soviet invasion. This is why everyone and their mother noted the irony that the one time Article 5 got invoked, it was because the US was attacked; this wasn't what NATO was created for, everyone knew what was supposed to happen was the US coming to Europe's aid when the Soviets finally came a knockin'.

This doesn't look anything like Dean's suggestion of Europe as a "mercenary" between the Soviet Union and the US; mercenaries are otherwise uninterested parties that you have to pay to fight for you, not people you promise to defend and you spend a fortune stationing your troops in their territory to do so.

...European and British troops came along with us Americans to go push North Korea's shit in for a little while, AIUI.

Allied contributions to the Korean War effort were around 10% of the total manpower, and the casualties are even more lopsided towards the Americans. The allied contingent was there for political purposes, to keep up the pretense that this was not just the US vs. the Commies, but the "whole world" versus a belligerent state. Any effort in "pushing North Korea's shit in" provided by the Commonwealth nations was just gravy, and appreciated, but it wasn't the point.

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