site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35585 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Two more gems from the NY Times archives:

Feburary 8, 1979 -- MAPUTO, Mozambique — What kind of man is Robert Mugabe, leader of the main guerrilla army now operating in Rhodesia? What kind of country would it be if he and his movement came to power?

The strongest impression, during an interview, was of an internal confidence approaching serenity. Mr. Mugabe speaks in a low voice, without the bombast of some other Rhodesian African nationalists. But he leaves no doubt that be believes his side is winning.

Americans would probably find him personally attractive despite his Marxist politics. He is a trim 50, the best‐educated of Rhodesia's leaders, articulate, rational, a practicing Catholic. He was a teacher and has several degrees — including a London University law degree earned by correspondence while he was a political prisoner of Ian Smith for ten years.

He was uncompromising in his opposition to Mr. Smith and the black figures in the “internal settlement.” They were continuing white dominance in disguise, he said, and he would not even negotiate with them — except perhaps “to bring about the necessary surrender.”

...But when he was asked about the future, when the war finally ends and Rhodesia becomes Zimbabwe, he did not sound doctrinaire. He emphasized that he was a socialist and was committed to redistributing wealth to “the dispossessed African,” but he spoke in pragmatic and gradualist terms.

His repeated talk of “realities” and what was “feasible” matched what some Westerners who know him well say of Robert Mugabe. That is that, having lived in Mozambique these last years, he does not like the ideological rigidity and economic troubles he has seen here- and does not want to make the same mistakes.

Could whites remain in a Zimbabwe ruled by Robert Mugabe? In terms of physical safety, their chances would probably be better than with any other African figure on the horizon. Even persons antagonistic to his politics concede that he is not corrupt, and the signs are that he has imposed discipline on a guerrilla army.

Four white prisoners of Mugabe's guerrillas, released here last week, spoke very favorably of the soldiers and repeated the compliments when they returned to Salisbury, to the embarrassment of the Smith Government. One of the captives was a seasoned British Army major, Thomas Wigglesworth, who said: “I was impressed with the guerrilla efficiency in the field, their discipline and particularly their high morale.”

For the American Government, Mr. Mugabe is a prickly problem. Conservatives denounce him as a “Marxist terrorist.” But he is doing well militarily and politically, and his mind does not seem closed. A Western diplomat said:

“He is the toughest but also the straightest. He doesn't say things to please people. Frankly, I think we can work with him.”

And from later in the year:

December 9, 1979 SALISBURY, Zimbabwe Rhodesia — If there was a betting line on the candidates to be this country's first internationally recognized black ruler, the shortest odds could well settle on Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, the odd‐couple guerrilla leaders who accepted the basics of a British peace plan for the territory in London last week.

...Although the tide of the war is running in their favor, the guerrilla leaders evidently have accepted the British peace terms in the expectation that power will come to them more swiftly through the ballot box than by the barrels of their Soviet and Chinese supplied guns. Zimbabwe Rhodesia has yet to see scientifically conducted public opinion poll, but straws in the wind suggest that their confidence may not be misplaced....

...Another villager interjected: “All we want is for the war to end. It looks like the people who can do that are Nkomo and Mugabe.”

...Bishop Muzorewa, with strong support among urban blacks, cannot be counted out. The peace agreement bars him from forming a coalition with former Prime Minister Ian D. Smith's 20‐seat parliamentary bloc but the prelate will have the certainty of white support if he needs it. He also probably can count on backing from some of the other splinter groups, though not all. Others may disappear as the electioneering develops, taking shelter inside one or other of the main contending parties.

So the "international community" refused to recognize the black President (Muzorewa) of a black-white coalition government, they refused to lift any sanctions, meanwhile Soviet and China was arming Mugabe to fight against the Rhodesian government. And the American government and NY Times viewed Mugabe's rule as the best option for Rhodesia. Yeah, pretty clear to me that the NY Times/American Government/British government/"International Community" was midwifing Mugabe's takeover of the country.

Thanks for doing the dive. These are gold--right up there with the Harvard Crimson celebrating the glorious victory of the Khmer Rouge over the filthy western imperialists.

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