site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   23925 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.

The benefit is fewer wars and more stability, which helps everybody.

Plus more military bases I guess. Better to have one somewhere than to need one somewhere and not have one.

Better to have one somewhere than to need one somewhere and not have one.

I cannot disagree more. Ever look at the US national debt?

Fewer wars?

Removing Ukraine from status of a buffer state and into US ally sure was peaceful!

What is your argument in plain English?

I know I wasn't the one you asked, and I'm also fairly certain that you comprehend what his(?) argument actually is, but I'll chime in.

We have ample evidence at this point to conclude that eastward NATO expansion was going to lead to more wars and less stability as opposed to not expanding NATO eastwards in exchange for a renegotiated peaceful coexistence with the newly reformed Russian state.

This assumes Russia wouldn't have just invaded those countries anyways, which was almost guaranteed to happen. Russia right now is like Germany after WW1: a revanchist power that's seething in resentment. It hasn't had its face smashed against the concrete like WW2 Germany or Japan did in a way that would convince the populace that war wasn't the answer. The only options were to actually do the smashing, which would be very problematic given its nuclear stockpiles, or to contain it. For the containment strategy, abandoning Eastern Europe would have just drawn the line in a less advantageous position.

That may be the situation now, but it wasn't in 1991. Also, one cannot 'abandon' something one never had, or never promised to claim and defend in the first place.

There was little chance reproachment would have ever worked. Russia has always really, really wanted to dominate Eastern Europe.

I'm not too sure what the evidence is for this. Surely, for all we know, less NATO expansion would lead to more invasions, because Russia would not have to worry about making an enemy of other treaty bound countries.

Has Russia attacked any of its neighbors that were not considered for NATO expansion?

ETA: I think you could maybe make this case for Moldova, although Russian action there seems very different than in Ukraine. There might be other cases that I am missing. But to be clear I don't think I buy either the narrative that Russia does everything out of fear of NATO or that NATO expansion has no connection to Russian actions.

We have, in fact, 4 clear examples from recent history of Russia not attacking her neighbor even when it goes down the obvious years-long path towards NATO expansion, namely Poland and the 3 Baltic states. All in all, yes, both of those narratives are wrong.

Because all countries are of course interchangeable. Say, having Monaco have a single North Korean base is entirely the same as if Spanish left-wing insanity took a turn and they adopted Juche as state ideology.

This is all so stupid and so tiresome.

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