site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   31728 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You don't even notice my point about simple economics and logistics

No, I did notice your point about economics and logistics. But your point wasn't relevant. The likelihood of winning a conflict has little relevance to whether that conflict should be waged in the first place.

Ironically, and contrary to your accusation, it is the serf who acts in accordance with prudence and rationality. The serf is a serf precisely because he correctly calculates that servitude is what gives him the best odds of continued survival. The nobleman, in contrast, acts in accordance with virtue, even when the outcome is certain destruction.

A Nietzsche quote for every situation:

Noble and common. - For common natures all noble, magnanimous feelings appear to be inexpedient and therefore initially incredible: they give a wink when they hear of such things and seem to want to say, 'Surely there must be some advantage involved; one cannot see through every wall' - they are suspicious of the noble person, as if he were furtively seeking his advantage. If they become all too clearly convinced of the absence of selfish intentions and gains, they view the noble person as a kind of fool: they despise him in his pleasure and laugh at the sparkle in his eye. 'How could one enjoy being at a disadvantage? How could one want with open eyes to be disadvantaged? Some disease of reason must be linked to the noble affection' - thus they think and look disparagingly, the way they disparage the pleasure that a madman derives from his fixed idea. What distinguishes the common nature is that it unflinchingly keeps sight of its advantage, and that this thought of purpose and advantage is even stronger than its strongest drives; not to allow these drives to lead it astray to perform inexpeditious acts - that is its wisdom and self-esteem. In comparison, the higher nature is more unreasonable - for the noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificing person does in fact succumb to his drives; and in his best moments, his reason pauses. An animal that protects its young at the risk of its own life or during the mating period follows the female unto death does not think of danger and death; its reason likewise pauses because the pleasure in its brood or in the female and the fear of being deprived of this pleasure dominate it totally; the animal becomes stupider than it usually is - just like the person who is noble and magnanimous. [...]

The likelihood of winning a conflict has little relevance to whether that conflict should be waged in the first place.

It actually has a lot of relevance. The real reason you act like it doesn't is that you do not seriously engage with the possibility of losing, and losing badly (losing what? To what degree? How many cards do you have left at the point of losing, and what terms can be negotiated?). People make unreasonable maximalist demands when they are assured of their invulnerability. You treat a great power conflict like another Middle Eastern adventure, “oh we found WMDs in this shithole, our Democracy will perish if we do not conquer it hue hue!”. It's an instinct that's hard to overcome after a century of uninterrupted wins and cost-free losses. The same Main Character Syndrome, coupled with low human capital in Trump team, explains decidedly suboptimal and cost-insensitive means that were chosen for prosecuting the conflict. Americans think they can afford anything, because that's recorded in their institutional DNA. But they have never fought a superior power, due to it never having existed prior to this day. So they have developed an auxiliary belief that the very fact of them antagonizing any power confirms it is inferior. It's hard to feel pity for such a narcissistic people.

it is the serf who acts in accordance with prudence and rationality. The serf is a serf precisely because he correctly calculates that servitude is what gives him the best odds of continued survival. The nobleman, in contrast, acts in accordance with virtue, even when the outcome is certain destruction.

In Imperial Russia, there was a trend when mujiks, LARPing as nobles, initiated duels over petty spats, murdering each other with axes; eventually the state had to put its boot down. Due to extremely low literacy rates they couldn't have plausibly cited Nietzsche when doing so, but I believe that they'd have appreciated your quote.

Self-serving, petulant, handwavy, shallowly aesthetic notions of virtue are cheap and easy to brandish in defense of one's animalistic impulses; any kind of impulsive retardation can be dressed up as a calling of aristocratic, virile masculine nature, there's a whole genre of extremely popular Western music about it, authored by the impromptu warrior aristocracy of the streets. Your own elite has been wiped out to such a degree that this whole discourse is vacuous, we can't consult with a living bearer of a tradition, only speculate. It is plausible that I am wrong and there's just never been any substance to the whole fraud.

But they have never fought a superior power, due to it never having existed prior to this day.

America fought Britain twice and the Ottoman Empire once when they were far superior powers.

I know. This was a completely different America, it's like saying that Moscow was once conquered by Poles or something (Russians are very proud of that episode, thanks to propaganda in history lessons, but obviously there is no memory, institutional legacy or military tradition that survived) – a dim fact people learn in school. America that lives today was born in the Civil War and was fully formed in McKinley's era, probably. Since then, it was straight up dunking on weaker powers. With some tasteless underdog posturing from time to time, of course.

Russians are very proud of that episode

Really, very proud? Because, against all odds, it ended with Romanov dynasty rather than a Polish king, or did you mean to write 'Poles' there?

I always mean to write what I write.

Oh, there even is a national holiday. We of course focus on the conquest and 'ugh, what could have been', so one gets the impression Russians could only be embarrassed by the episode. Dumb, I need to pick up a history book written from Russian perspective.

We are aware that at the time the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't the «poor little plucky Poland, the sacrificial lamb of Europe, bullied and partitioned by cruel great powers» which I'm told is your national narrative, but a more developed and organized, competent expansionist power and that, indeed, it «could have been» that we'd have lost sovereignty indefinitely and been supplanted in history by the mighty Polish Empire. This feeds into schadenfreude and relief about your subsequent decline and losses of sovereignty. Pre-Romanov era Poland is viewed as a quite serious actor, without any condescension.

So, there's enough of a cause for pride to both sides I guess.

P.S. I also should look into how the Polish side sees that episode.

What you wrote looked like you meant to write Russians are proud of being conquered by Poles, not of kicking the Poles out.

Russians are proud of the episode in its fullness, not just the part where Kremlin gets occupied but before it's liberated, of course. I could have phrased this better but whatever.

Self-serving, petulant, handwavy, shallowly aesthetic notions of virtue are cheap and easy to brandish in defense of one's animalistic impulses; any kind of impulsive retardation can be dressed up as a calling of aristocratic, virile masculine nature, there's a whole genre of extremely popular Western music about it, authored by the impromptu warrior aristocracy of the streets. Your own elite has been wiped out to such a degree that this whole discourse is vacuous, we can't consult with a living bearer of a tradition, only speculate. It is plausible that I am wrong and there's just never been any substance to the whole fraud.

Missed your writing. Glad you’ve rejoined us briefly in this transitional period while we no doubt wait for ASI to materialize and save/destroy us.

It actually has a lot of relevance. The real reason you act like it doesn't is that you do not seriously engage with the possibility of losing, and losing badly (losing what? To what degree?

I am well aware that losing is a live possibility, and I know exactly what losing would look like. Losing means a Guangxi Massacre in every American town and city. Losing means obliteration; losing means being consigned to the graveyard of civilizations. Still we press on.

Given that your deepest yearning is for technology to liberate us from life as it has existed hitherto, it is unsurprising that you find these values to be unintelligible.

Losing means a Guangxi Massacre in every American town and city.

It's not clear what must happen for the world to end up like this, but America is a nation of dreamers; I suppose you can effect even this result if you keep pressing on. However, my optimistic theory of American loss is that due to constant bluffing and irresponsible policy epilepsy the USD loses its status as reserve currency, your fraudulent markets deflate, your internal racial contradictions bloom, and after a while you get a lot quieter and less obnoxious as your living standards crash down to roughly Polish level, which is actually very neat and, given your current course, more than you deserve. The traffic to your shores dies down, as mandated by the Great Leader Donald Ieyasu Trump; the rest of humanity, free of the loathsome star-spangled yoke, peacefully trades and gets richer, while you lick your wounded pride and dream of revenge.

A median scenario is that you simply accept the existence of a bigger guy on the block (bloodlessly, or after trying your luck one last time in the South China Sea) and retreat to your hemisphere, living much the same lives as today.

And I suspect that you know this. But it's too painful to imagine such a world, a boring high-probability world where the sky didn't fall, but you're no longer the uncontested Main Character Nation. Visions of massacres and genocides are anesthetic in comparison, they return you to the familiar domain of Marvel movies. Any Avengers-Level Threat, by laws of narrative, ultimately gets defeated, so there really aren't any stakes or hard decisions to make this way.

Great Leader Donald Ieyasu Trump

That should be Iemitsu if you are looking for whoever enacted sakkoku.

I would happily accept either of these worlds. Certainly they sound much better than where things seemed to be heading as of last year.

I try to be more positive lately.

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