site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34909 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.

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.

I’d assume some basic competence in mapping influence networks.

On whose side?

Mossad certainly.

CIA-FBI-NSA? Possibly.

FSB-GRU? Press D for doubt. Maybe some early Millenial working for FSB heard about big Yud and read HPMOR , but he is not making policy, he is working for Xer boss who is working for Boomer top boss.

I'd assume that the NSA, FSB, Mossad, etc have a brief entry on us in their internal Wikipedia equivalent but that we're too small for any of them to pay much attention to.

Now I wouldn't be shocked if someone in Vance's or Elon's inner circle was on here, in which case we'd actually get monitored. But I wouldn't put more than 50% on it. But the Russians use either low-IQ trolls on public-facing forums or 'how do you do fellow dissidents?'.

Now I wouldn't be shocked if someone in Vance's or Elon's inner circle was on here, in which case we'd actually get monitored.

Since Elon seems to get all his news from 4chan and xitter shitposters, not some elite ninja research team, I would be shocked if it was the case.

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

Well, that's not my claim and not what I think. But to the extent that they are interested in protecting themselves against NATO (and they are) you can't brush off flipping Ukraine to Team NATO as no big deal.

Yes it can because:

  1. it is not important for Russia: it's just an excuse (once again, if they felt threatened they just increased the threat)

  2. It's not important for NATO, given that the west has never really promised anything to Ukraine.

Therefore it seems to me you all say it is "important", but if it's neither important for Russia (their policy proves it) nor for NATO, I don't really think it can be important "per se"

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

The US and Europe sponsored color revolutions which brought "corrupted autocratic governments" to power in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014.

No those governments weren't autocratic given that the power has swiftly switched hands. Sure they were and are still corrupt, but the corruption level is continuously decreasing since those revolutions.

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