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.

His childish behavior (inappropriate attire, attempting to alter the deal in front of the press, insolence to a nation responsible for his nation still existing) put the deal at risk, and seems to indicate that his country’s well-being no longer holds paramount sway in Zelensky.

I guess not everyone is the kind of respectable elder statesman that Trump is.

It has been said that the west will defend Ukraine to the last Ukrainian soldier, and there is some truth in that. For NATO, Ukraine is a great geostrategic investment. We pay peanuts (compared to the NATO military budget) to weaken the primary opponent of NATO and get someone else to do all the dying for us. As a bonus, the country we support is much more sympathetic than the mujaheddin were back in the old days and seem much less likely to disrupt the NYC real estate market.

Obviously, Ukraine is going to take NATO aid as long as they want to resist Putin. But expecting them to be more grateful to NATO than the mujaheddin were would be unrealistic.

Now enter Trump. This dude starts "peace talks" with Russia, immediately makes big concessions to Putin while calling Zelensky a dictator. Then he invites him to the White House and expects him to grovel. Even if Zelensky did everything Trump wanted, signed the deal, wore whatever Trump felt was appropriate, rolled over on command and so on, Trump will not be satisfied and keep the military aid flowing. In the end, he expects Ukraine to accept some peace deal he is negotiating with Putin.

When you are fighting a war, national pride (however much I might detest the concept) is an asset. Zelensky getting humiliated by Trump would definitely affect the fighting spirit of Ukrainians, and is likely not worth the few extra bombs Trump might deliver before cutting their flow to force Ukraine to accept a deal he has made with his best buddy Putin.

Swallowing your pride to keep US intelligence assets feeding you information and some level of payment for your entire civilian infrastructure doesn't seem that bad a deal.

Everyone forgets that this mineral deal was Zelensky's idea. So on some level he was okay with it.

But it looks like he thought he could get security guarantees out of it, and when Trump told him no, he forced the issue despite having no leverage. Or simply misspoke his way into a diplomatic insult. (Seriously, who tells any head of state "you will soon feel [consequences]" to their face in front of the whole world and expects to get away with it?)

Either way, Ukraine is barely holding on as it is despite the immense bravery and sacrifice of its soldiery, if the US cuts support, even if the EU doesn't, it's over.

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