site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34897 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.

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.

Yeah, and frankly unless Mongolia has nukes they won’t have meaningful independence when completely landlocked by Russia and China. It’s a done deal and all they can do is grovel.

That’s exactly why they’re safe.

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?

Geography.

Both Ireland and Portugal are at worst the toy of machinations of their closest regional power, the entire world's geopolitical balance doesn't revolve around control of their land.

More comments

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