site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34913 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.

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"

In what world does Russia's policy of

  1. Strenuously insisting for years that Ukraine not join NATO
  2. Surrounding Ukraine with a massive army and sending a list of demands that includes "no joining NATO" and then finally
  3. Attacking Ukraine before it can benefit from NATO protections

Come around to prove that Russia doesn't find "Ukraine not joining NATO" important?

In a world where Russia lies, probably

Okay, but I don't just get my info from Russia, here – you can go look up the memos where Bill Burns (former CIA director) talks about how Ukraine-into-NATO is a bright red line for Russia. Do you think he's lying too?

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.

would you consider the current government in Ukraine to be "corrupted autocratic governments"?

No

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