site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   32783 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does Boris Johnson count as "nobody" or how does this work exactly? Is it the kind of "nobody" where responsibility for foreign policy is diffused over an entire organization so nobody is to blame?

The claim that there was a good deal on the table at Istanbul until Boris Johnson sabotaged it is a mildly conspiratorial take on the "The war is the West's fault because Ukraine should have surrendered." The deal was rejected because it included a binding treaty commitment by the UK and the US not to help Ukraine if Russia restarted the war.

I would say that the more realistic version of this argument is that a lot of Russian speakers dramatically overestimate the power and influence of the British government and in particular the British upper class (which Boris himself is arguably not necessarily part of, but to a Ukrainian / Russian clearly is). Ilforte / Dase wrote about this a number of times but it really is true and explains the unusual level of hostility toward Britain by many of the more ideological Putin supporters and Russian nationalists in general. Many believe earnestly that America is just a puppet of Britain.

In this context one can see why Boris’ bloviating posturing and general bluster (which everyone in Britain mostly tuned out while he was mayor) might make a different impression on Zelensky, especially when it came to his Churchill LARP and telling Ukraine to fight on until the end. For example, maybe Zelensky genuinely got the impression that Johnson would ensure the US spent whatever it took to defend Ukraine and that the ‘official’ position from the masters of the world order was that they should fight on.

I see, nobody's doing it, and when they are that's a good thing.

I guess I should not listen to Boris about his own actions, or Merkel and Macron for that matter.

Has it occured to you that the West's foreign policy could be disastrous even if Russia isn't blameless?

I am aware of the possibility that Putin is the remarkably sane kind of nuclear madman, such that handing him Ukraine on a plate would lead to the return of the status quo ante except for the unfortunate Ukrainians, and failing to do so will eventually lead to nuclear armageddon. I do not consider this particularly likely, but were it true the current western policy would be disasterous.

Better to just lose and ruin Europe in the process right?

I mean seriously, what is even NATOs policy here besides blowing up a bunch of Slavs? I think I understand what Russia wants. I have a fair idea what the EU wants. I don't have the faintest clue what the US wants because it changes on a dime every Sunday.

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