site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34791 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I imagine this isn't enough to send in the troops - but I could see myself reading a history book in 30 years about how Poland, and by extension, everyone else, were pulled into the Great Russian War by a bomb and two dead farmers.

The problem here, I think, is simple to state, but devilishly complicated to solve: is NATO membership worthwhile?

If things did unfold as it seems, then Russia is responsible for a military attack on a NATO country. If it's "accidental," Russia essentially has to sacrifice someone's head on a platter--even though there's no reason to think Putin wouldn't just send some of his own troops to take responsibility, to keep the West guessing. But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

On the other hand, if there is reprisal... maybe WW3? A big NATO fight in Europe basically guarantees an attack-of-opportunity on Taiwan, and god-only-knows where else.

And if this is actually a Ukrainian false flag somehow, like... what a way to gamble. But I suppose a nation faced with a genuinely existential crisis has no reason to not gamble with the fate of the whole world, beyond pure, likely supererogatory altruism.

A year ago I'd probably have said "this is surely an accident and Russia is going to make that very clear very quickly, possibly with generous payments to next-of-kin." Today? I just don't know.

And if this is actually a Ukrainian false flag somehow

This is not the likely venue. Missile guidance systems fail, sometimes operators shoot off rockets based on bad information or misread or unclear radar signatures. Russians are shooting a lot of ballistic missiles at Ukraine, and the S-300 AA rockets can be used to intercept them.

Most likely scenario, it was a high-alert and there were incoming missiles to some Ukrainian positions, the word had gone out, and a battery of Ukrainian AA rockets close to Poland fired (possibly at a false signature, possibly at a real attack), missed, and landed in the wrong country.

Most likely scenario, it was a high-alert and there were incoming missiles to some Ukrainian positions, the word had gone out, and a battery of Ukrainian AA rockets close to Poland fired (possibly at a false signature, possibly at a real attack), missed, and landed in the wrong country.

Looks like you called it.

Lol, it's not often my guesses are that precisely fulfilled!

The problem here, I think, is simple to state, but devilishly complicated to solve: is NATO membership worthwhile?

What do you think the Polish view on the value of NATO is?

If things did unfold as it seems, then Russia is responsible for a military attack on a NATO country. If it's "accidental," Russia essentially has to sacrifice someone's head on a platter--even though there's no reason to think Putin wouldn't just send some of his own troops to take responsibility, to keep the West guessing. But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

The point of NATO is not to deter Russian military incursions. The point of NATO is that if the Russian military invades, the other members and the Americans destroy Russian battalions in such numbers that they will be removed and the member government restored. It is fundamentally not a deterence-only alliance, but an alliance for what happens after deterence fails.

This is a point where technical language can get conflated by casual use. A missile strike, even if true, wouldn't be an incursion. Nor does reprisal require military action unacceptable to the members of the alliance, ie disproportionate in scale. The value of a military alliance is not solely in deterrence. Etc.

On the other hand, if there is reprisal... maybe WW3?

Against what army where with what allies to justify the name?

Russia notably had 80% of its military forces in Ukraine before it was bringing the post-WW2 tanks out of storage, and was unable to supply invasion lines very far in a country that it shared rail gauge with. This is as a rail-dependent logistical system.

Meanwhile, the CSTO in the last few months ago wouldn't get involved in a minor border war between its own members. If not them, who is supposed to be allying with Russia to give a truly global scale of conflict? The Chinese?

A big NATO fight in Europe basically guarantees an attack-of-opportunity on Taiwan, and god-only-knows where else.

How does a NATO land war in Europe give the Chinese an opportunity they didn't already have to launch an amphibious invasion they're not prepared contested by the Pacific and Middle Eastern carrier groups that don't really have a role in a NATO-Russia conflict?

The US Army doesn't exactly have a key role in a Taiwan conflict, and the European navies even less so.

A year ago I'd probably have said "this is surely an accident and Russia is going to make that very clear very quickly, possibly with generous payments to next-of-kin." Today? I just don't know.

That's never been the Russian way under Putin. Malaysian Airlines Flight 12 is probably the best example here.

Meanwhile, the CSTO in the last few months ago wouldn't get involved in a minor border war between its own members.

The Azeri's left the CSTO in 1999 so it was more a war between a CSTO member, internal dissidents and a former member. CSTO has been inconsistent in dealing with internal incidents, ignoring Kyrgyzstan but intervening in Kazakhstan but the Nagorno-Karabakh wars notionally should have been treated as a proper conflict for them to resolve unlike how NATO would sit out Greece and Turkey starting a conflict.

But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

But... Russia has not taken hostile military action against Poland. The missile, if it even was theirs, was clearly aimed at the Ukraine. Two farmers died. Nobody gives a shit.

I care at a radical level

Most Poles will feel at least past the level of ' giving a shit ' and that will have meaning if they want it to.

will poles care once we find out it's a ukrainian AD missile?

Yes? We'll just hate Russia even more. What kind of question is this?

I've seen a lot of weird comments now that we know what happened that the Poles should somehow be upset at Ukraine.

I say take Kaliningrad.

I say take Kaliningrad.

I sincerely hope that people that say things like this are gonna be the first ones to sign up for occupying the trenches. Unlikely though

Nato isn't an automatic doomsday device that gets triggered by anything that could resemble an attack. Actual people have to say: yes, let's go to war over this. And two dead will never be enough. They shot down a plane full of dutchmen to no response.

But that happened over non-NATO territory; if killing NATO member states' citizens wherever qualified, we'd have had constant wars due to random deaths of tourists and the like.

Also, the Dutch are still working on the case, and I think they'll get their due eventually (some speculate that the continued survival, despite his criticisms, of Girkin/Strelkov is because Putin wants to buy some reprieve with surrendering him to the Dutch or Hague as the true instigator of the war and also the commander directly responsible for the MH17 incident). There has been substantial, multinational economic response as well.

Arent a few farmers dying extremely weird? What’s the possibility that the missile falls on a farm exactly where the handful of people are at that moment.

According to German news, it was two, so likely a married couple, which means their house got hit (edit: or tractor apparently), so not particularly strange from that aspect.

An extremely unlucky coincidence is more probable than intentional Russian strike, or Ukrainian provocation though. Putin is a trickster, and a manipulator, yes, but he won't get anything by striking Poland, the only far-fetched explanation (that it's an "off-ramp" that would allow him to justify withdrawal from Ukraine) I think we can dismiss. Also some pro-Russians push the version that it's an attempt of Ukraine to draw NATO into the war — I too find not credible. Mostly because American GEOINT and MASINT is quite advanced, and with American help Poles won't have trouble to piece together what exactly happened.

I think we should look at the event holding this thought — that in a day, or two, or maybe a week NATO will know precisely what happened — whether it was a Russian missile, or a Ukrainian AA missile, or maybe both (e.g. if Ukrainian missile intercepted a Russian missile, and they both fell on those poor farmers). And I think Russian, Polish, Ukrainian and American authorities understand this. Kuleba already said that it wasn't a Ukrainian missile

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1592633235754057728?cxt=HHwWgIDQqazflZosAAAA

if he lied, or even was misinformed, Ukrainian credibility will take a hit. At the same time, Russians are no strangers to lying (think of their behavior during MH17 events), so they'll say "it wasn't us" either way.

EDIT: Remember the Ukrainian airplane that Iran shot down (what an irony)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752

Americans leaked that it was Iranian AA the next day, on Jan 9th. And they were monitoring Iranian airspace in the aftermath of Soleimani just as they monitor Ukrainian airspace now.

if he lied, or even was misinformed, Ukrainian credibility will take a hit.

The one thing I have found consistently weird about the entire Western perception of this conflict is the universal mass-amnesia of the fact that Ukranian and Russian are birds of a feather. I personally tune out everything that comes from the mouth of a slavic leader as an obvious fabrication, and wait for the independent corroboration of events.

I don't think it's fair. When an American politician lies, Americans blame him personally (or maybe his party, like "GOP always lie"). On the other hand, when someone not from the US lies, the blame is put on culture like in your case "post-Soviet leaders always lie, it's because the culture of mistrust yada-yada". I guess it's sort of outgroup homogeneity?

Are you sure on your probabilities? If they are actual farmers the farm even a small size would be like 10 acres. Maybe 5 humans on a family farm? Your talking about 1/1000+ probability that a missile hitting the farm would kill someone.

Now if a missile fell in a suburban housing project maybe you have a 20% chance it’s close enough to kill someone. But on a working farm?

I think it's probable that it might be more complicated than just "a missile fell on a tractor", but rather it was due to some false positive of a guidance system. Still it doesn't mean that it was intentional. Kinda similar to my theory of COVID-19 — it might be a lab leak, but not an intentional release in order to [decimate Chinese/Americans/old people/enter your reasoning here].

Well I also thought maybe Poland added some flair to the missile. But yes on a big farm it seems improbably a missile just happened to hit the tractor humans were in.

Not only that, if you look at the photos it looks like the missile directly hit a tractor.

No one knows what it was programmed to do exactly but here's a good example scenario:

The missile should fly 400km Westward, but a sensor malfunctioned and miscounted its distance. Once that sensor thought it had been 400km, it turned on the visual targeting system. Normally, this would look for a building of a certain shape - but in the middle of a field, it found no buildings. It went to secondary targets, tanks and so on. It found a tractor and went for it.

Is that how missiles work though? That sounds way smarter than I assume missiles are.

Here's the wiki on the s-300, which is likely what this was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

It seems like there is a base station with a radar on it that it uses for target acquisition, not on the missile itself.

That’s true for acquisition, but if you look at Specifications for the table of weapons launched, the more recent ones have their own radar.

Radar or IR is far more likely, but your basic premise is sound. If you're out in the middle of acres of farmland that big steel frame and engine block is going to be the strongest radar return for miles around, ditto the tractor's hot exhaust for an IR guided missile.

Looks like these are radar-guided, so it probably homed on the radar reflection of the tractor.

But if there is no reprisal, then Poland, at least, has to be asking, what's the point of belonging to NATO? NATO, the alliance that was specifically created to deter Russian military incursions?

While there are gradations, it's pretty easy to see how there's value in having an ally that will provide overwhelming force against an invasion but doesn't have your back when it's a couple dead farmers.

All the NATO treaty requires is that members take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Which, in this case, is probably nothing.

Which, in this case, is probably nothing.

Why? Do you know something nobody else knows? (I mean, you may be right, but it's not at all obvious to me how you got to this conclusion.)

No, I know exactly what everyone knows. This event does virtually nothing to compromise the security of the North Atlantic area, and hence virtual nothing need be done to restore the security thereof.

It might also be Ukrainian accident, not necessarily a false flag: there have been plenty of documented cases where Ukrainian air defense misses the target and hits something on the ground, this kind of stuff is bound to happen. In those cases, Ukraine typically claimed that it was Russian rocket (because why not), but if this was the case here, Poland would actually prefer Ukraine to come out and say that this was their air defense rocket. This way, NATO doesn’t need to intervene, so that it’s not risking credibility loss.

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