site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   33640 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.

Could Zelenskyy not keep his pride contained for a few hours?

Counterpoint: could Trump not keep Putin's dick out of his mouth for a few hours? Saying Zelenskyy ought to be more polite is a tactical remark at best, and given that Trump and Vance appear to have been spoiling for a fight I'm not sure it would have mattered. Conversely, Trump apologists are continually telling me that I ought to respect Trump as president of the United States, but also that he can't be held responsible for what he says or does. If he's president of the United States he ought to act like it.

Ukraine needs the US much more than the US needs Ukraine.

I don't think people grasp that this goes way beyond Ukraine. This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO. Even if the next president is a hardcore internationalist, everyone is going to remember the fact that America elected Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP fell in line behind his every temper tantrum.

And yes, the US does need its allies. It's not 1941. Autarky is retarded, and we're going to quickly find it's a lot harder to strongarm the rest of the world than have friendly negotiations.

  • -14

Counterpoint: could Trump not keep Putin's dick out of his mouth for a few hours?

This type of rhetoric is adding far more heat than light.

Conversely, Trump apologists are continually telling me that I ought to respect Trump as president of the United States, but also that he can't be held responsible for what he says or does. If he's president of the United States he ought to act like it.

I agree with you here.

I don't think people grasp that this goes way beyond Ukraine. This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO.

I think the burden of proof is on those saying this actually does go beyond Ukraine. I'm not aware of any official commitments the US had towards Ukraine, so I'm not sure how we're supposed to conclude from recent events that the US' other alliances are now dead.

This is just the latest in an escalating series of actions from Trump demonstrating to American allies that the alliances are dead - that Trump will abandon American commitments on a whim and prefers Russia to NATO.

This framing falls apart if you look at it from a distance.

  1. What are the American commitments to Ukraine? Were you aware before 2022 that America had a potential 12-figure liability to Ukraine in the event of invasion? I didn't.

  2. Trump does not prefer Russia to NATO. This impression comes from the fact that Trump wants to somewhat reduce the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia, and increase the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on NATO, but this completely disregards the fact that current diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH harsher than the restrictions on NATO

This impression comes from the fact that Trump wants to somewhat reduce the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on Russia, and increase the current level of diplomatic and trade restrictions on NATO

It comes from the fact that Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and disparaged NATO allies, siding with the former to excuse Russian territorial aggression. You say the above like it's normal and reasonable to want to rebalance away from your long running allies towards your longest running enemy (led by a guy who has proven again and again to be unreliable and belligerent).

Trump and Vance appear to have been spoiling for a fight

Trump and Vance were more likely getting ready to sign the deal that was already agreed upon, smile for the cameras, and have pats on the back all around.

This is not the time to throw in more demands and threaten to sink the deal.

Vance specifically started the fight. I think it's important we realize that's where the whole thing derailed. I don't think Trump and Vance both wanted the same thing to happen, but once it got going that's another matter, Trump is going to back Vance up plus had his own axes to grind if given the chance. Trump knows he has a certain image to maintain and was aware of the optics the whole time. Hell, at the very end, he even comments about how the whole blow up would make great TV...

Definitely think Vance set them on a collision course with the respect comment. That's a red rag to someone like Trump and Zelensky was apparently in no mood either.

Did you even watch the video? It’s 40 minutes long. Most of it is them talking about the diplomatic solution theh seem to have found, and Trump just keeps hammering that we need to find a peaceful end to the war.

Vance’s comment was a brief reiteration of this point, and Zelensky then escalated it into an argument by implying that he wanted to blow up the deal because he (a politician who has cancelled elections in his own country, btw) doesn’t believe in diplomacy.

Full disclosure I watched the final 10 minutes, so more than the 5 minute clips floating around but not the whole thing. That clip started with a question about Poland, Trump talks about how he’s aligned with “the world”. Nothing too abnormal for Trump. Trump says “one more question” and then Vance interjects out of nowhere about how actions and diplomacy matter more than chest thumping and words, which failed (talking about Biden’s time specifically). Zelensky then says well, this has been going on longer than the last 4 years, it’s been a decade - and last time, the deal was basically the same! A gas contract (economic ties) and promises (Europe and Obama) didn’t deter the 2014 mess. So he asks: what does “diplomacy” mean, if not that? Those earlier efforts are also diplomacy. It’s a good question.

And then Vance basically says “that’s disrespectful” and calls his points propaganda aimed at the media. What? Nothing in Zelensky’s point was that weird. Again it was a fair question - this new deal sounds suspiciously similar to the old post-2014 “solution” which clearly proved to be non-durable. Vance bringing up respect and throwing a rhetorical punch directly clearly, in my view, kicked off the combative part of the video.

More to the point, it really wasn’t supposed to be such a long thing. Usually, these kinds of media events are 10 minutes of fluff and posing followed by the actual discussion. I’d be interested to know what made this one drag on so long (maybe it was inevitable, actually, given such a long time in a room together in front of cameras). However, remember: Trump literally cut it off and then Vance said wait I gotta say something first (get it off my chest kind of thing). Otherwise, take the question, start the meeting, then negotiations behind closed doors.

I don’t think that is true. Watch the whole thing.

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