site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1706 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 2, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In my perspective there’s a lot of Russian propaganda talking points popping up in the Culture War chat and it’s kinda made the whole thing boring for me now. I’d like to keep my personal syntax on the internet down to sites I actively use.

  • -10

I would offer you a different viewpoint. This is just Ethiopia all over again. A clash between Realpolitik and Wilsonian's views.

Realpolitk says that Putin is entitled to half of Ukraine, because saving it whole is not worth it.

Wilsonian's says it's immoral so we should go all in.

Russian propaganda in its core is closer to Realpolitk so a lot of opinions may be viewed by this lens.

Also the European equivalent of woke have put so much of their capital and emotions into Ukraine side. And their foaming at the mouth alone is making the loss of Ukraine worth it.

I don't want Putin to win. I want Brussels to lose badly.

If Woodrow Wilson were drawing up a new Fourteen points for today, he would emphasize the right to self-determination of the people of Crimea. Western war aims include conquering Crimea to annex it into a Ukrainian land empire, perhaps as some kind of successor to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Wilson would denounce that as immoral.

I have no idea what Ethiopia, Realpolitik and Wilsonian's views are, sorry lol.

Well, see, Russian propaganda at it's core is just straight up lies, in my opinion, and that's just not fun to argue with. There's no winning to be had, alas.

I have no idea what Ethiopia, Realpolitik and Wilsonian's views are, sorry lol.

Invasion of Ethiopia - when the league of nations bickered, so the realistic realpolitik plan - Italy to get the plains and Haile Selasie to keep the mountains never got traction since the LON was brainchild of then president Woodrow Wilson so Italy got all of it.

Realpolitik is the notion that nations should chase their own interests, be indifferent towards the internal structure of the other players and that morality moves to second place.

And well Woodrow Wilson thought that we should sing kumbaya and if we create a league of all nation and outlaw war then all the world will be at peace forever.

So from Realpolitik view invasion of Ukraine from Russia makes sense. How much support should US provide depends on US interests and it is irrelevant what Ukraine wants of needs. And Trump sees probably Ukraine as a chip to gain some favors from Russia or a proxy that just needs enough support to lose the war slowly as to bleed Russia dry.

So saying that Ukraine should take a bad deal now to avoid taking worse one tomorrow is grounded in reality. This could also be said about Palestinians after the US firmly backed Israel during the 20th century. It is Russian propaganda I guess, but it is not a complete lie the way the war is going.

Ethiopia is a country in Africa. No idea what the reference being made is, but I assume some past political event. Realpolitik is the philosophy that in politics, one must deal with cold hard reality. In this case, whether one believes Ukrainians are entitled to get their land back or not, they aren't able to take it themselves and nobody seems inclined to fight on their behalf to get it back for them. So like it or not, they should (according to realpolitik) deal with the situation that exists as best they can, not cling to vain hopes of getting their land back, because they are just going to annoy people and wind up with an even worse deal in the end than if they gave concessions now.

Ahh, thank you for the clarification.

There really are a lot of Russian talking points, aren't there? But don't you find it interesting to see how badly many quite smart people here want to believe in them? It's an endless task to try to engage with or counter all of it, nonetheless, I feel that the more misinformation and distortion I read here, the more I learn!

My reaction is the total opposite of yours. I don’t find it interesting; actually I find it quite boring, and I’m afraid all I’ve got left in the tank is disregard.

You don't have to read it. I often don't, beyond skimming through for posts that show more consideration than simple partisan reaction. If it feels like I've read enough and there's twice as much again left to go I collapse the thread.

Discussions here would be stale without two sides, which is what makes your own presence here worthwhile as someone who often brings a measure of balance to gendered topics, so I encourage you to consider staying on.

For me, discussion here became stale when Russian propaganda began to be seriously debated. I just can't take it seriously; it's like being at a pool party where someone poured that mythical urine-indicator dye and seeing exactly how many people are pissing in the proverbial water.

If you don't mind me asking, how did you even find this place? This site is a quarantine site to contain the often toxic political discussions that would otherwise happen elsewhere, and the people who enter the quarantine tend to be those of us who enjoy such things for whatever reason. The site isn't really advertised anywhere, and so usually the only people who come here are the proverbial pissing in the water club.

Coming here and complaining that there are too many bad political takes feels like signing up for a poker strategy forum and complaining that they talk about and glorify gambling an unhealthy amount - arguably not wrong, but how did you even get there?

I read that famous Harry Potter fanfiction by Yud and slippery sloped all the way here.

Now I'm really curious what did the intermediate parts of the slope looked like for you. The usual parts of the slope contain interminable debates about AI doom, but your question asking what an LLM is isn't compatible with you coming from that part of the slope, which means you must have taken a different and more interesting path.

If you're up for it, I'd like to know which of the following 20 obscure terms you've encountered.

  1. Paperclipping
  2. Shrimp welfare
  3. Dath Ilan
  4. Egregore
  5. Great Filter
  6. TPOT
  7. Moloch
  8. RaDVaC
  9. Futarchy
  10. Vampire castle dynamics
  11. Seeing Like a State
  12. Metamour
  13. Yeerk Ma'ar
  14. Motte and Bailey
  15. Bayesian
  16. Embryo selection
  17. PEPFAR
  18. The crystal sphere surrounding the world
  19. Seasteading
  20. Hyperstition

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20. Very curious to know what the others mean.

More comments

For me: Understand: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

Have heard, but don't remember exact meaning (but maybe approximate): 9, 11, 20.

To contribute to your statistics: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12?, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I read the Harry Potter fanfiction, I looked up the author and got to LessWrong, I read a lot of LessWrong, found Scott Alexander who mentioned Jordan Peterson. Looked up Jordan Peterson and found RationalWiki. RationalWiki led to SneerClub, which led to the Motte on reddit, and then I followed the Motte off reddit. Motte and Bailey, Bayesian and Embryo selection are the only three I know.

More comments

That’s how they got me, too…

So now that you know what realpolitik is, how confident are you in your ability to distinguish it from Russian propaganda?

That's not my problem. My problem is I think Russian propaganda is a pretty boring topic to debate about and I can't take it seriously. I don't know how else to say it without accidentally coasting into "boo outgroup" territory.

So you don't like hearing people talk about the Ukraine war at all? Nobody is forcing you to read it of course, but it's been a pretty major topic of discussion on here for a number of years.

No, I don’t like hearing obvious Russian propaganda talking points. I agree it’s been a topic discussed before, but there’s talking about the Ukraine war and there’s regurgitating Russian propaganda and I think the latter is happening and it is just a huge intellectual turn-off for me. I don’t think you can have discussions about it; it’s like debating at a geography debate club and suddenly the topic changed from the relevance of tectonic shifts to if the Earth is flat. Even if the conversation changes topic, the shock is still resounding for me.

More comments

If you find no constructive avenue for conversation with your opposites here, leaving is indeed the correct choice. May you fair well wherever your travels take you.

I'm just waiting for it to pass, it's currently hot in the news cycle, but we will soon be able to get at each other's throats for something else

I wish I could carry on like that, but for me, it's like a bunch of people in the geography debate club became flat earthers overnight. I just can't get the taste out of my mouth.

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