site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34898 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.

What is the end-state your policy is aiming for? A ceasefire? Deter subsequent Russian invasion? Restoration of Ukraine's original borders? The Russian army destroyed? Putin deposed? Russia broken up? Something else?

The main end-state aim was that every country in the world understand that there is no hope to change the world order by force. So a deterrent, but not only for Russia: also for China/Taiwan, etc.). This end-state is now unreachable, because the world order has changed, but that it hurts the aggressor is the most important part. Saving Ukrainians is a net benefit, though.

How much aid would you provide?

Any aid unless:

  1. It seriously threatens the economy

  2. It seriously threatens US security (as in, the US wouldn't be able to handle a direct attack)

  3. There is a risk of direct conflict with Russia

So I would provide weapons, money and intel. No no fly zone (because it means a direct war with Russia), nuclear umbrella only after a peace agreement.

Is there an end-state or a potential event in the war that you think would falsify your understanding of the war, and convince you that providing aid was a bad idea?

Most of the time, I think individual policies are not falsifiable (politics does not work this way). But in this case, there are things

  • The aid sent actually hurts Ukraine and benefits Russia

  • The NATO threat on Russia decreases (eg the US leave NATO), and Russia becomes less threatening.

The last point is the most important to me. Russia and most of the pro-Trump side justify the invasion by saying that Russia feels threatened by NATO and has no other way to protect itself. I think this is bullshit, and the only reason Russia feels threatened by NATO is because it protects countries it wants to invade. If Russia and Trump are right, then Russia should become less aggressive if NATO is less threatening. If Europe and I are right, Russia should become more aggressive if NATO is less threatening.

lso for China/Taiwan, etc.

what what what Almost every country legally considers Taiwan to be part of China

Most countries pay lip service to the One China policy, yes, but in practice most countries do have separate relations with Taiwan, because Taiwan is de facto a separate country from mainland China and has been for decades.

and has been for decades. This is irrelevant. (e.g. Somaliland). They just like one split and do not like the other

And?

and i want that "and" double think to cease

What doublethink? Why must any user agree with politicalspeak of any country, even their own?

Doublethink is that in one case, de jure explanation are heavily used when in favors American interests, and de facto explanation in the other.

The main end-state aim was that every country in the world understand that there is no hope to change the world order by force. So a deterrent, but not only for Russia: also for China/Taiwan, etc.). This end-state is now unreachable, because the world order has changed, but that it hurts the aggressor is the most important part. Saving Ukrainians is a net benefit, though.

This is just stating that the original goal at the outset was delusional. Many countries have been altering borders by force for the last 3 decades without NATO intervention. At least one of them, Turkey, is a NATO member.

Yes we shouldn't have let Turkey do that, but it seems to me the orders of magnitude involved in those wars is not similar at all

Turkey took over half a country, Cyprus, and is currently occupying vast swathes of Syria. Its not orders of magnitude smaller. The only thing smaller is the media coverage.

Cyprus is a very small country with 1 million inhabitants, and Turkey invaded a third (not half) of the country and its population. 300 000 people is the same order of magnitude as just the losses during the war in Ukraine.

About Syria, it's a mess. Everyone and their friend owns some part of Syria. If you can tell me more about it I'm curious, honestly. How many Turkish soldiers are their in Syria? What part of the territory do they control?

How so?

The last point is the most important to me. Russia and most of the pro-Trump side justify the invasion by saying that Russia feels threatened by NATO and has no other way to protect itself. I think this is bullshit, and the only reason Russia feels threatened by NATO is because it protects countries it wants to invade. If Russia and Trump are right, then Russia should become less aggressive if NATO is less threatening. If Europe and I are right, Russia should become more aggressive if NATO is less threatening.

If you're unable to understand why adding a border nation with a substantial army to a rival military alliance could be perceived as threatening or otherwise unacceptable by Russia, or any given country, then your model of the world is woefully inadequate. Imagine the PRC pulling Canada into its orbit and stationing Chinese troops on the border of North Dakota.

I get this constant vibe, not necessarily just around here but also when discussing this subject elsewhere, this sense of "Why would anyone consider us someone to defend against? We're the heckin' good guys!" and it just feels so out of touch.

If you're unable to understand

I'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?

There are other way to build trust and increase your security than invading neighboring countries

I'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?

I'm saying they would perceive less threat, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon the circumstances. If you think being perceived as threatening is important to keeping a bully in line then just say so, but spare me the feigned indignity that anyone could ever consider your troops on their border a security issue.

You are strawmanning, you know. If Russia wanted to decrease the threat at their borders there are other ways, like building trust. With their invasion they only increased the perceived threat from the other side and therefore their own threat level. Given that they were perfectly able to predict it the perceived NATO threat is just a pathetic excuse and you know it

My purpose isn't to steelman Russia's military policy, it's to push back at the ridiculous notion that no one has any reason to view your Defensive Friendship Legions marching along their border as threatening.

What is your theory exactly? The proof that Ukraine is a threat to Russia is that Russia decided to increase the threat level? If Ukraine in NATO is dangerous to Russia, what about Finland and Sweden then? The NATO threat on Russia plays absolutely no role in the actions of both sides (excepted as a propaganda tool) therefore it is unimportant.

My theory is that pretty much any country under nearly any circumstances is going to perceive a rival military alliance expanding to its border as a threat to its security.

Fundamentally, neither side should trust the other because neither side is actually trustworthy. Stalemates, ceasefires, and uneasy peaces backed up by threats of force is all that is on offer until one or both sides collapse internally.

Fundamentally, neither side should trust the other because neither side is actually trustworthy. Stalemates, ceasefires, and uneasy peaces backed up by threats of force is all that is on offer until one or both sides collapse internally.

Not an universal principle. Denmark and Sweden fought a war approximately once per generation circa 900 until 1815. A classic example fundamental lack of trust and historical ethnic enmity driving a permanent conflict. Then, after Napoleonic wars they stopped. Denmark decided of pick a couple of fights against Prussia afterwards, but List of wars between Denmark and Sweden ends in 1814. Both sides had suffered setbacks but neither country collapsed in the sense Austria-Hungary or USSR collapsed. Sweden had lost its meager empire to Russia, and stopped trying to reclaim it. Denmark stopped trying to reclaim Scania.

It's perfectly possible to decrease the threat level significantly, for example by verifiably decreasing the stockpile of nuclear weapons both sides, establishing verifiable demilitarized zones both sides of the border,...

"You gave me insufferable provocation. When I wanted to rob you I found you had locked the door."

Strategic policy doesn't spring forth from fresh earth, it is a consequence of strategic context. Finland, the Baltics, Poland and more recently Ukraine have their armies configured primarily to fight a Russian invasion because Russia has a history of invading, and its leader talks about how he could totally invade. Oh look Russia invaded Ukraine and is annexing their territory, again. It's Ukraine's fault, he was coming straight at me, you all saw it.

In the hypothetical where the PRC are invited to the Canadian side of the border: what happened that lead to that point?

In the hypothetical where the PRC are invited to the Canadian side of the border: what happened that lead to that point?

Who gives a damn? Unless the hypothetical is "the PRC and the US have become best friends and the troops are just there to blow kisses" there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.

The US should give a damn, because if it's been sabre rattling its closest neighbour to the point it feels the need for foreign military assistant it should understand that the """threat""" it is facing is a locked door.

And once the US "understands" this, then what? They decide actually thousands of Chinese troops on their border are just dandy? They stop moving any of their own forces around in reaction, and invite China to send over a million more just for fun?

there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.

If you think taking actions Russia would view as threatening is a good idea because they're warmongering bullies who need to be kept in check then fine, but own it. Stop acting like it's crazy that anyone would view having your happy funtime soldiers on their border as a security concern.

What does it matter?

Is there some metaphysical karmic ledger we must balance, or are we allowed to take geopolitical decisions in the here and now in the interest of the living?

All land is stolen land. So what? I still don't want to be blown to smithereens for no reason so borders and control of ressources should reflect actual military power, not ideology.

All this discussion started with my very falsifiable claim that Ukraine surrendering to Russia would increase, not decrease, the threat level for eastern Europe. I'm not sure how you got to the point that there is any metaphysics involved

I'm as puzzled as you are. Because I think that the threat level for Eastern Europe has nothing to do with Russia's historical imperialism or "trust" or any other such fib and everything to do with how relatively weak the European militaries that defend it are.

There is no world where Eastern Europe isn't contested because lest we forget:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.

But Ireland and Portugal have also a relativemy weak military and they aren't particularly threatened

They're in western Europe.

Mongolia is sandwiched between two big baddies and doesn't feel particularly threatened.

More comments

Yes I know, that is the point. What in the world makes them secure without a proper army and wouldn't work for Estonia, excepted that none of their neighbours have been imperialistic for decades?

More comments

The US until recently occupied Afghanistan flooding Russia with heroin and putting American air bases close to Russia's nukes. The US has been invaded Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It is clear that the US would attack Russia if it could. American politicians would attack or topple Russia if they could. The US is hyper expansionist and extremely aggressive. There is a clear reason why the Russians wouldn't want them on their border. If caring about countries outside your border is paranoia, why does the US care so much about latin American countries?

The US until recently occupied Afghanistan flooding Russia with heroin

China does this with fentanyl and precursor chemicals in Mexico. Does this give us a casus belli against the Chinese?

Yes. You're just illustrating that myopic idealism is irrelevant to international relations, and what actually matters is cost/benefit analysis. If China were doing what it currently does with no nukes and the 1980 economy we'd already be in Hong Kong and Bejing.

Fair enough. To be clear, I didn't ask the question rhetorically or as a "gotcha." I'm not even sure there is a single "correct" response there.

If they did it enough, absolutely.

I'm sure the Chinese understand the concept of an Opium War.

Is china occupying Mexico and using its troops to gaurd druglabs and plantations?

No, just actively supplying the harmful chemicals/drugs.

flooding Russia with heroin

This sounds believable given rumblings about Afghan poppy crops, but do you have any sources for this?

If caring about countries outside your border is paranoia, why does the US care so much about latin American countries?

I didn't say caring about countries outside your border is paranoia. It would be contradictory with helping Ukraine, wouldn't it?

But if "caring about countries outside your border" means invading other countries and expanding your own territory even though your country is already the largest in the world, then the only conclusion is that Russia will have to conquer the entire world to feel safe.

Russia is already the country the most heavily armed with nuclear weapons ; and Ukraine or not the US can erase Russia from the map, so Ukraine can be part of NATO without any change in the threat level for Russia.

Ukraine can be part of NATO without any change in the threat level for Russia.

Respectfully, this is silly, the border between Ukraine and Russia is (or was) nearly 2,000 km and that's a lot of extra airspace to cover if you're trying to defend against a first strike on either your nuclear assets or your command and control assets. Ukraine also had, I think, the largest non-Russian army in Europe, which meant adding them to NATO represented a much larger conventional threat.

I grant the "nuclear ace in the hole" that Russia has currently is a nice one to have, but will they have it forever? If the US gets a missile defense shield some Russian nuclear weapons might become unreliable as a deterrent.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't think Russia cares about Ukraine merely because of the conventional threat, but it's not serious to say "I have nukes, so my largest and best-armed European neighbor joining a de facto hostile military alliance poses zero threat to my national security." Of course it does. Unless you're suggesting that nuclear-armed states can have no conventional threats at all – in which case neither China or Russia pose a threat to the United States and nothing happening in Ukraine can reasonably bother England or France.

adding them to NATO represented a much larger conventional threat

Am I misremembering: I distinctly recall the issue that caused Ukraine to slip away from Russian sphere was not Ukraine's hypothetical NATO membership but concerned a trade deal with EU, in 2013. Politicians started discussing Ukraine joining NATO only after the shooting in Donbas had started. As a result, decade after the Euromaidan, Russia has lost its gas trade with Germany, more of its European neighbors have joined NATO, and Ukraine will likely not return to its sphere willingly.

Losing Ukraine was an obvious own goal for Putin. Had he accepted the Ukrainian trade deal with EU that Yanukovich had negotiated could plausibly have supported Russian policy of wielding political power in German politics by economic connections and gas.

Yes, I think the economic angle is important. As I understand it, Russia made a competing deal that the President of Ukraine was inclined to accept, but he got tossed out on his ear instead in Euromaidan, and subsequently Russia invaded Crimea.

However, Ukraine-can-into-NATO? discussions actually go back to the 1990s, and NATO declared that Ukraine (and Georgia) would become NATO members in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit. It looks like Ukraine did put their aspirations on hold between 2010 and 2014, which is probably where you got the impression that it was a new discussion, but it's not as if the post-2014 discussions were the first anyone had ever heard of it, Putin had been telling anyone who would listen that Russia opposed Ukrainian membership in NATO for decades by the time 2022 rolled around.

You didn't reply to the strongest point of my message, where I argue that your logic logically implies that Russia will never be safe until it controls the entire world (and you don't seem to intend to do anything to avoid it)

That's like saying because the United States objected to nuclear weapons in Cuba, they logically will blockade every country in the world until nuclear weapons are removed from them.

Obviously the presence of a peer competitor anywhere in the world does make you less safe, but if you can't predict that great powers treat their near environs differently than distant ones – and will find some security situations much more tolerable than others – I dunno what to tell you.

(and you don't seem to intend to do anything to avoid it)

Although probably both Vladimir Putin and JD Vance are Motte posters, I am neither, and thus my options for doing anything as regards Russia are pretty much nonexistent.

Decent odds, maybe 50% chance Vance is here. Doubtful on Putin. Would be unsurprised if Russian intelligence used this forum as a source of intelligence on exploitable culture war topics.

You have too high opinion of Russian intelligence.

Yes, I agree with this assessment, except I would be a little surprised if Russian intelligence had heard of this place. Vance being here would be the least surprising thing in the world.

Eh, Russian influence operations run more like ‘hey (fringe group) want some cash and organizational assistance?’.

I’d assume some basic competence in mapping influence networks. They’d certainly know of the rationalists, and if so would know of SSC, and if so would likely know of this place.

Imagine you were tasked with knowing about Internet culture circa 2005. You’d certainly know about the Something Awful forums. Though I guess this place is more like FYAD. Or the piracy forum spinoffs.

More comments

That's like saying because the United States objected to nuclear weapons in Cuba, they logically will blockade every country in the world until nuclear weapons are removed from them.

No, not at all. It would only work this way if the US were expanding their borders in the process (as Russia did with Crimea and wants to do with the four oblasts). Because when you expand your border they actually get closer from the threat, which justifies another war where you expand them further.

If Russia is so terrified with having its territory invaded, then the first step should be not to annex Crimea and Mariupol, because with their coast they provide a very sweet invasion spot, eg from Turkey.

if the US were expanding their borders in the process

Oh okay. So if Russia said "hey we're not expanding our borders, we're turning these oblasts into...Legally Distinct From Russia, er, Novorossiya" that would fly with you? Regime change is fine as long as border change isn't? Because the United States attempted regime change in Cuba, and took direct military action against it (that's what a blockade is). And in fact in a lot of places. And I am not convinced that couping people is Good and Friendly behavior.

Regime change is fine as long as border change isn't?

It's not about being fine or not, it's about disproving the claim that Russia is only interested in protecting itself against NATO

More comments

Russia's strategy up until the 2014 revolution was not expanding their borders (although Kiev was Russia from 1686 to 1991!), but in exercising soft power and diplomacy in Ukraine. They lost the soft war, so had to settle for a hard one.

They lost the soft war, so had to settle for a hard one.

No they "had to" nothing. The best way to ensure security is to build trust with your neighboors and not to sponsor corrupted autocratic governments

More comments

Ding ding ding ding, correct!

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