site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   38715 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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 whole thing made me nauseous , treating an ally like that is disgusting , unpresidential and certainly geopolitcally inept.

Ukraine is not an ally. I get that the U.S. foreign policy blob sometimes talks like that, but they are not part of NATO, there has never been a treaty of alliance, the American people were never sold on Ukraine being an ally. Personally, I just want the war to end as soon as possible and I really don't care about territorial concessions or military concessions Ukraine might need to make.

Ukraine is not an ally. I get that the U.S. foreign policy blob sometimes talks like that, but they are not part of NATO, there has never been a treaty of alliance, the American people were never sold on Ukraine being an ally.

This is part of what confuses me about the recent discourse surrounding what's been going on. I'm very sympathetic to Ukraine, but the sorts of comments about how recent events are evidence of the US betraying Europe or its allies or whatever seem so much more divorced from reality than they usually are that I'm left wondering if I've missed some crucial development in all this.

Well, as an American I care deeply about territorial concessions in Ukraine. I don't want russia getting one more inch of land. I want them to be taught a brutal lesson for their aggression. Ukrainian soldiers are fighting for my interests in a much more direct way than American soldiers have in any war since WW2. I don't understand how any American of European descent can care about Ukraine less than Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other countries our tax dollars have been squandered on over the years.

I'm an American of European descent. (Actually, I live in Europe).

I don't care who controls some low-quality real estate in eastern Ukraine. I care about the people who are getting killed in the war. More so the Ukrainians, who are are undergoing horrible suffering they did nothing to deserve, but yes, also the Russians as well. Accordingly, my preference is for the war to end as soon as possible, regardless of what this means for "territorial integrity", "credibility" or similar considerations. I have felt this way since day 1, incidentally.

I hope that answers your question.

  1. I don’t want my taxpayer dollars squandered.

  2. Ukraine is a shitty corrupt country of zero political significance that easily could’ve been described in a low simmering civil war.

  3. KSA is actually strategically important. There is a close connection with Israel (which isn’t nearly the same corrupt shithole as Ukraine). Basically there is no value in Ukraine.

I don't understand how any American of European descent can care

I'm an American of European descent. I don't care which flag flies over the Ukraine, it has nothing to do with me. And I believe that the elite class who run the GAE essentially parasitizes helots like me to give money to the rest of the countries you list, countries that I feel no kinship towards, and in fact dislike.

Ukrainians are not fighting for my interests as a religious red triber. They may be fighting for your interests as a progressive blue triber. But that shouldn't be hard for you to understand.

Are you a new poster? Assuming you're not a troll trying to stir up drama, I recommend trying to steelman your outgroup's beliefs and to spend more time considering why they might disagree with your framing of things.

Well I didn't say you should care, just that I don't understand how Americans can care about Ukraine less than Israel or other countries that we spend billions defending. Obviously I don't expect religious red tribers to agree with my anti-religious views, but it seems like there should be some common ground in not wanting Europe to be overrun. As much as I'm frustrated by some of Europe's anti-free speech laws, it's still my ancestral homeland.

I can't defend the support for Israel or middle eastern shenanigans as I also firmly oppose both. As far as not wanting Europe to be overrun, your post prompted me to write a tangentially related post here. In short, Europe and America have drifted apart, and I don't know if it still makes sense to act as though they share similar cultures and beliefs.

I don't care about Ukraine less than those. I don't care about any of those countries one bit. I have no malice towards them, but I don't see why we should intervene in their affairs. Once we fix our numerous internal problems, then maybe we can use those resources to play world police. But until then, I do not think there's a good justification for spending money on other nations' problems rather than our own.

Yes they are. For 3 years they have been fighting to further your interests too , whether your interests changed so much that you now align more with putin is a different matter , but for 3 years yes they were an ally. The fact that you now align with putin so much that you dislike who he dislikes speaks to how unserious and untrustworthy the new US goverment is .

  • -17

It was never in my interests for US government to be involved with Ukraine. My position on Ukraine is the same as Obama stated in 2016, which is that it is a core interest of Russia but not of the U.S..

What country are you from BTW?

as Obama stated

For fuller context:

As regards the two-year-old conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the president said Ukraine is a core interest for Moscow, in a way that it is not for the United States. He noted that, since Ukraine does not belong to NATO, it is vulnerable to Russian military domination, and that “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.”

The extent to which people react differently to Obama's regarding his position on Ukraine compared to how they do to Trump is quite noteworthy.

What source of knowledge are you using to form an opinion of what is or isn't in your interest? Because I am sure Obama would gladly say he acted like an idiot back then. Poland and the baltics border Ukraine which are in NATO , so of course it's not ideal for these countries to border an aggresive and expansionist Russia. How is this not clear? If you can't think like that leave the alliance, and if you have changed your mind that much change your foreign policy , just don't go around acting like trump is acting and disrespecting and bullying your former allies. I am from Greece.

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