site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   33231 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.

Putin cannot be trusted without security guarantees, but I fear Zelensky cannot be trusted with them. Fundamentally, neither side trusts each other or wants to stop fighting, and I completely understand why. Unfortunately for Ukraine, US support is not unconditional or unlimited, and at some point it's just throwing good money after bad. Ukraine gave Russia a bloody nose, and they've made Russia pay dearly for little gain. Russia was expecting a cake walk, and it has been anything but. They will think twice before repeating any such adventurism. For this, Ukraine should certainly be celebrated, but they are outmatched even with material support. They have no path to victory. If anything less than complete withdrawal of Russian forces is unacceptable, then I think Ukraine will lose everything rather than something. Western elites who continue to talk in those terms are fundamentally unserious, incapable, and unwilling to commit the forces necessary to make that happen. These are people who had nothing good to say about Ukraine until Putin invaded, and their stance today is motivated far more from fear and hate of Putin than love of Ukraine. For them, Ukraine is worth sacrificing to preserve their sense of international order. Ironically, Ukraine underestimates their peril, because they're surrounded by enemies on both sides.

This is exactly the point. The west (or at least America) doesn’t trust Z not to try to draw US into the conflict so they came up with the idea of creating some economic benefit for the US that creates some strategic ambiguity. It really was a smart solution and those on the other side either are unwilling to admit Z can’t be trusted or want what Z wants (a war in Ukraine with US boots on the ground).

If anything less than complete withdrawal of Russian forces is unacceptable, then I think Ukraine will lose everything rather than something. Western elites who continue to talk in those terms are fundamentally unserious, incapable, and unwilling to commit the forces necessary to make that happen.

My understanding is that mosf of those people are trying to play a waiting game... if Ukraine keeps holding out. surely at some point Russia's economy will collapse under the weight of war/casualties/sanctions, and at that point Ukraine can get favorable terms and/or retake most if not all of its territory.

I unfortunately have no idea of how to evaluate that likelihood (beyond my personal view of "it's a nice dream, but highly improbable"), as all the reporting on the state of the Russian economy/military is... distorted, to say the least, and I don't claim to be an economic expert to begin with.

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