site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   9012 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

I think you have to be pretty credulous and/or clueless to take this talk of Trump being a Russian asset remotely seriously.

However, If I was a US President who was also secretly rooting for/in the pocket of Vladimir Putin here are some of the things i would be doing.

  • I would pursue a policy of rapprochement with Russia and its allies such as Iran, and instruct the State Department and US government-aligned NGOs to find excuses to ship them pallets of money and materiel.
  • I would work to curtail energy production and export by the US and other western powers to increase Russian revenue and negotiating leverage.
  • If Russia were to suddenly invade or annex the territory of one of its nieghbors I would be hesitant to condemn them and if possible avoid taking any action until it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
  • If pressured by congress and allies to provide support for the invaded I would slow-walk the deliveries, and put onerous restrictions on when/where US/NATO aid is allowed to be used, and against what targets.

In short, I would be following the example set by Barack Obama in 2014

Ding ding ding.

If Trump is the Russian Asset, it'd be strange that Putin made his territory grabs in Obama and Biden's terms, was relatively well behaved during Trump 1, and is actually demonstrating willingness to make peace during Trump 2.

You even forgot the classic "I'll have more flexibility after the election" moment.

Why do you think Putin is demonstrating willingness to make peace in a way which goes beyond the default? He has always been happy to discuss terms on which Ukraine might surrender - and neither Putin nor Trump has made any public statements that suggest Putin would accept a reasonable peace deal, even a temporary ceasefire on the current front line.

One of the reasons why I am suspicious of Trump's motives here is that he is generally acting as if the key fact about the path to peace is that there is already an offer of a deal from the Russian side which preserves Ukrainian sovereignty in the territory Ukraine currently controls, and the reason why the war continues is that Zelensky is unwilling to accept it. This simply isn't true. Someone needs to bring Russia to the table as well as Ukraine, and Trump consistently talks and acts as if this is not the case. The model of Trump where his words and actions make sense given his goals is one where he thinks the best achievable outcome is a Ukrainian surrender with minimal additional bloodshed.

Now add alienating allies into the mix.

Obama was soft on Putin. Trump is another level.

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