site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34963 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean it’s literally true that most European countries don’t have much of a military or military equipment manufacturing, no? Europe is grand standing that they are going to keep this Ukraine stalemate “war” going, but lack the equipment and soldiers necessary to do so (as Ukraine seems to just be running out of men).

Is the truth insulting? Then perhaps European countries should spend less on welfare and more on their militaries (as they are obligated to do under NATO). If they aren’t willing to do that, then give up on Ukraine and make a peace deal.

Military equipment manufacturing is actually something the euros have, though- Germany and France have big arms industries producing equipment competitive with current U.S. issue, and Sweden maintains a pretty good arms industry too.

Yes, this point often seems to be lost in commentary, particularly on the US side. While it's hard to figure out actual monthly 155mm production (as opposed to production goals), Rheinmetall alone produces the same ballpark number of shells per month as the entire US MIC.

That's true for shells, but bear in mind that "more shellls than the US" is a pretty low benchmark. Until this war broke out in Ukraine, the US had almost stopped making shells completely. It thought that mass artillery bombardments were a relic of the cold war and wouldn't be needed anymore. But recently the US has been increasing shell production much faster than Europe: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/

And half the free world drives German tanks. The EU produces, in itself, three highly capable jet fighters. France and Germany make precision munitions, combat ships, the whole nine yards.

But what happens when all the infrastructure for that gets hypersonic missile striked on the first day of the war?

Yeah, I think this is something that gets neglected frequently in the /r/CredibleDefense-style discourse of how an EU entry into the war would play out. There is a meaningful sense in which the current arrangement, in which the EU functions as a safe logistical and industrial base for Ukraine that could enter the war but hasn't, is stronger in the long run than one in which it participates in earnest - for starters, the Ukrainian power grid largely is still somewhat operational only because attacking Ukrainian nuclear power plants is an EU red line (the non-nuclear ones are already largely out of operation, and the grid itself has a lot more redundancy); and there's the Polish and Romanian staging areas right across the border, and recon flights peeking across the border from EU airspace.

Ending the war and not letting Europe prolong it with empty promises?

We can dig up quotes from European leaders about Trump that are way worse than anything Vance ever said.

And it's not like American leaders of the past were always paragons of respect either. Remember freedom fries?

But agreed. We should tone down the rhetoric. More importantly, neither side should be supporting specific factions within the opposition of the other country. That applies to Elon campaigning for Afd, and the Labour party interfering with US elections on behalf of Kamala. Elected leaders should be respectful of the elected leaders of other countries, even if they privately hate them.

Elected leaders should be respectful of the elected leaders of other countries, even if they privately hate them.

This is just tit-for-tat - the Europeans violated this first, with Starmer sending staff over to campaign for Kamala and Zelensky doing it in person. I agree that the norm of not interfering is good, but it was broken a long time ago (and it isn't like the US has clean hands here either).

You'll have to go further back to find out who started it. Obama campaigned against Brexit in person.

If you rule out something like that, what kind of international opinion-giving would be allowed, if any? He was presenting an argument on behalf of the UK government not pro or con a specific political party.

If you rule out something like that, what kind of international opinion-giving would be allowed, if any?

Whatever is already allowed after you rule out foreign politicians campaigning for political parties during an election. Referenda should be treated basically like elections as far as norms around foreign interference are concerned, you're trying to sway voters at that point not just addressing the government.

The exchanges (mostly of backroom staff) between the US Democrats and UK Labour party on the one hand, and the US Republicans and UK Conservative party on the other, have been going on unobjectionably since at least the Reagan/Thatcher era. 2024 is slightly different in that the MAGA Republicans prefer to work with Reform, which didn't have the infrastructure in place to do such exchanges party-to-party so they ended up in effect working with Farage personally. The outrage on the right was (while real) both clueless and entirely hypocritical. The claim @FirmWeird is making that Starmer started something is straightforwardly false.

I remember at the time that the British Deep State used sympathetic media to grumble about the unusual level of support John Major's Conservative party gave to Bush Sr's failed 1992 re-election campaign and worrying that the Clinton administration would be hostile to the UK as a result. They weren't - they returned the favour by helping Blair in 1997, and in turn that didn't affect the ability of the Blair and Bush Jr administrations to cooperate after 9-11. We used to be able to distinguish between party-to-party and government-to-government interactions - I think that stopped when US partisanship got so bitter that the idea that a politician could speak for the country in a non-partisan way became quaint.

The norm that private citizens don't interfere in foreign elections, or that political parties qua voluntary political associations don't interfere in foreign elections might be a good one, but it isn't a norm that actually exists. There is a norm that incumbent executive branch officials don't interfere in foreign elections, and it is a good one (and should probably be extended to backbench legislators). But even that tends to fall apart when one country's perceived-existential issue is another country's partisan controversy - as with Ukraine supporting the party that doesn't want to hand it over to Russia, or previously with Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress (explicitly co-ordinated with Congressional Republicans as an attack on the Obama administration) against the Iran nuclear deal. I'm sure we are going to see Canadian politicians attacking the Trump tariffs in ways which they see as standing up for the Canadian national interest and American Republicans see as partisan interference on behalf of the Democrats.

The other problem is that social media context collapse means that people don't always bellyfeel that they are getting involved in foreign politics when they poast about something that shows up in their timeline in the same way a domestic political item would.

The claim @FirmWeird is making that Starmer started something is straightforwardly false.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I just want to clarify that I wasn't saying this was the start of all foreign election interference. I was making that claim in a more limited context (the current slapfight), which is why I then went on to say that the US did not have clean hands and that the supposed norm was broken a long time ago. My apologies for being unclear!

And, of course, there was a lot of open and hidden American electoral interference to European electoral politics during the Cold War. A lot of political forces in Europe basically ran entirely or mostly on American cash.

So while we're doing this, can we also admit that the hysteria around Russian influence was always nonsense?

I've never considered direct Russian influence to European electoral politics to be as meaningful as claimed by many, though there have been clear attempts by the RF to do so.

Elon would say he isn't an elected leader, but I agree and I think his position necessitates some distance. I doubt we'll see it though.

Elon is de facto a high-ranking executive branch official. He was described by a supporter in the thread on the "five things this week" e-mail as deputy CEO of the US executive branch, and wants to be seen as such internally. The norm against governments (as opposed to private citizens or political parties) interfering in foreign elections absolutely applies to him.

Yep that's what I said?

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