site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28173 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But until they do, they ought to enjoy the full support of people who also don't like wars of aggression prosecuted upon them.

The irony when the support comes in the forms of billions dollars of aid and weapons from the American militaro-industrial complex.

If Russia is able to win all conflicts by threatening a world war, they're going to spread unchecked.

A reasonable border conflict, similar to the Cuban missiles crisis.

They're the guy robbing my convenience store at gunpoint; if they go down in a hail of cop gunfire after stealing a car that's just as well.

Again, there's a whole series of convenience store robberies you haven't looked at if Russia is the main perp in your eyes.

Russia withdrawing from Ukraine.

Not going to happen unless Russia is destroyed. Having a de facto NATO protectorate on your border is a matter of life or death for Russia.

Putin replaced with someone who's more interested in increasing Russia's GDP than square miles.

Russia's GDP is square miles. Square miles of resource-rich land, that Russians have been doing quite a good job at keeping under control, compared to say the West in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Is there a strong reason to believe that Putin is the glue holding together the federation?

Historical precedent. You know what you lose, you don't know what you gain.

How well did the Arab Spring go for liberal democracy in North Africa and the Middle East?

Again, there's a whole series of convenience store robberies you haven't looked at if Russia is the main perp in your eyes.

Are there other nuclear arsenals aimed at the US? China's is unimpressive compared to Russia's, but don't get me wrong, when (if?) China invades Taiwan I will have zero problem with the unholy gift basket of armaments my tax dollars will provide them with.

Having a de facto NATO protectorate on your border is a matter of life or death for Russia.

How unfortunate for them. Maybe if they didn't make NATO the only way to avoid getting invaded and instead offered a better deal they wouldn't be in this mess.

How well did the Arab Spring go for liberal democracy in North Africa and the Middle East?

Man, it's been a while. i think the fondest hope was that Iran would flip, and it didn't.

But Gaddafi got his, so there's that.

Maybe if they didn't make NATO the only way to avoid getting invaded and instead offered a better deal they wouldn't be in this mess.

NATO doesn't protect anyone from invasion, quite the opposite actually.

Without NATO wars in North Africa and the Middle-East, there would have been a lot fewer immigrants to Western Europe in the past decade, that many have characterized as 'invaders'.

But Gaddafi got his, so there's that.

Gaddafi got what? His fair trial according to the rule-based liberal world order?

NATO doesn't protect anyone from invasion, quite the opposite actually.

NATO countries invaded by RF: 0

Non-NATO countries invaded by RF: 2

Gaddafi got what? His fair trial according to the rule-based liberal world order?

Something about the consent of the governed.

NATO countries invaded by RF: 0

How about NATO countries invaded by Syria / Libya / Iraq / Afghanistan etc?

The 2015 European migrant crisis, also known internationally as the Syrian refugee crisis,[2][3] was a period of significantly increased movement of refugees and migrants into Europe in 2015, when 1.3 million people came to the continent

Something about the consent of the governed.

Which Libyans consented to a coalition of NATO countries and Qatar to come in and murder their leader?

How about NATO countries invaded by Syria / Libya / Iraq / Afghanistan etc?

Redefining invasion.

Which Libyans consented to a coalition of NATO countries and Qatar to come in and murder their leader?

The Libyans who bayoneted him and shot him dead.

So all the Russians have to do is :

capture Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders, then deliver them to a Ukrainian (from the East) who shoots them and bayonet them to death

then have them set up a pro-Russia government

Then you would support Russia?

If Russia had limited its intervention to capturing the government instead of staging a full on invasion and all of the death and destruction entailed I think it would be much easier for Russia to avoid international contempt.

But you're missing a key point: Gaddafi was a piece of shit who took down a commercial airliner to fuck with the west. Zelenski isn't.

Isn't that according to the same people who claimed Iraq had WMD?

I'm not familiar with the story but I'm skeptical in general.

More comments

Not going to happen unless Russia is destroyed. Having a de facto NATO protectorate on your border is a matter of life or death for Russia.

They already had Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. How is adding Ukraine to the mix "a matter of life or death"?

Supposedly Ukraine is a key area that leads straight to the sensitive parts of Russia (Caucasus) with a lot of oil + access to the Black Sea, according to John Mearshmeier I think.

The irony when the support comes in the forms of billions dollars of aid and weapons from the American militaro-industrial complex.

Not particularly ironic when financial/economic military support has been the cornerstone of American international strategy since the American colonies were gleams in the British eye.

A reasonable border conflict, similar to the Cuban missiles crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was not a border conflict.

Again, there's a whole series of convenience store robberies you haven't looked at if Russia is the main perp in your eyes.

I am glad you are on the position that Russia is a perpetrator.

Not going to happen unless Russia is destroyed. Having a de facto NATO protectorate on your border is a matter of life or death for Russia.

Not really. Russian nuclear deterence, and on top of that there's a general lack of interest in any of its neighbors to invade Russia. Any death of Russia will be self-inflicted.

Now, running into a wall headfirst is a way to commit suicide, but it remains self-inflicted.

Russia's GDP is square miles. Square miles of resource-rich land, that Russians have been doing quite a good job at keeping under control, compared to say the West in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Russia's GDP is 1.7 trillion dollars. Russia's land area is a bit more than 17 million square kilometers. This is an average GDP per square KM is 100,000/km2.

A few years ago, Russia's closest GDP comparisons, right above and below, were Canada and South Korea.

Canada's GDP is about 1.9 trillion dollars. Canada's land area is about 10 million square kilometers. The average land GDP would be 190,000/km2. Canada, notably, has 90% of its population within 150 miles of the US border.

South Korea GDP is about 1.8 trillion dollars. South Korea's land area is 0.1 million square kilometers. The average GDP/square KM would be about 18,000,000/km2. South Korea is, notably, a country about the size of the US state of Indiana, only without the oil.

Russia's GDP is worse if you want a land comparison.

How well did the Arab Spring go for liberal democracy in North Africa and the Middle East?

As a Chinese communist said about the French Revolution, it's still too early to tell.

The irony when the support comes in the forms of billions dollars of aid and weapons from the American militaro-industrial complex.

That's...just kinda what happens in modern war? The biggest industrial player gets to budge the needle at their whim. You might as well complain about American industry in WWI (which I wouldn't mind, necessarily! The Danish had the right idea back then, IMO).

The irony of claiming 'people who also don't like wars of aggression prosecuted upon them.' who are the very people prosecuting wars of aggression against every one else in the last few decades.

Take out Putin and you might make the Ukraine slightly safer, the rest of Russia probably not safer.

Take out the shadow cabinet of Biden, the boards of all NATO weapon manufacturers and you make the whole world a lot safer... probably.

I'm an American. The proliferation of America's military power does not threaten me. Quite the opposite. Russia's different. It makes far more sense to side with my country against the one that has a button press intended to destroy it.

This all comes off as a distraction anyway. But I think even independent of my pro-America bias, it's very hard to spin the US as being as destructive of an influence as Russia. Far harder to defend the victim's of America's "wars of aggression," at least.

If Zelensky had tried to assassinate Putin's dad and recently invaded a neighbor and had a history of using chemical weapons on his people, I probably would be far more sympathetic to Russia than I am.

Removing the US from the equation seems like a great idea if you want China and Russia to be more dominant forces for some reason. A stance that makes sense for citizens of those countries, but not many others. There are probably a lot of people in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia who would disagree that this military industrial shadow cabinet is a threat to their safety as they buy their hellfire missiles.

I'm an American. The proliferation of America's military power does not threaten me.

So you do not identify with the BLM crowd 'hands up don't shoot' or the J6 protesters 'please stop detaining me without a trial'?

What about Rittenhouse? Good boy watching his neighborhood or one of these evil gun-havers that needs to be disarmed by the military kicking down everybody's door?

This all comes off as a distraction anyway. But I think even independent of my pro-America bias, it's very hard to spin the US as being as destructive of an influence as Russia. Far harder to defend the victim's of America's "wars of aggression," at least.

Hard to argue with that. We can start with Russia never dropping nukes on 2 cities full of civilians perhaps.

So you do not identify with the BLM crowd 'hands up don't shoot' or the J6 protesters 'please stop detaining me without a trial'?

Non sequitur.

the military kicking down everybody's door?

In the US? You know they've all got guns at home right. They're not going to kick down their own doors.

We can start with Russia never dropping nukes on 2 cities full of civilians perhaps.

Russia practiced total war same as everyone else. You really think they wouldn't have used nukes if they had them?

All I'm saying is that they are a lot of Americans that believe that the militarization of American police is a bad thing.

Joe Biden for example:

"Surplus military equipment for law enforcement? They don't need that," Biden continued. "The last thing you need is an up-armored Humvee coming into the neighborhood, it is like the military invading, they don't know anybody, they become the enemy. They're supposed to be protecting these people."

According to many people, the proliferation of America's military power is directly harming them.

Another aspect is the mental health crisis for veterans, who make up a significant share of the homeless on American streets.

Russia practiced total war same as everyone else. You really think they wouldn't have used nukes if they had them?

They've had them and not used them. Their track record is much better than America's.

militarization of American police

Which has jack diddly squat to do with the discussion. Armed forces and police are separate entities. What does that have to do with Ukraine?

They've had them and not used them. Their track record is much better than America's.

The consequences for using nukes now is different from the consequences of using nukes then. They're still shelling cities with conventional weapons, with the expected results. 'We didn't use nukes to destroy Bakhmut, just conventional weapons!' isn't an impressive humanitarian boast.

Armed forces and police are separate entities. What does that have to do with Ukraine?

Veterans come home from Desert war and find jobs in the local police forces, where they apply their military training to 'pacify' the diverse cities of America. Surplus military equipment gets sold for cheap to police departments across America, which use them for riot control, arming SWAT forces etc. Fewer wars would mean fewer veterans looking for a job and fewer surplus military equipment to liquidate on the poor inner city minorities.

Some Americans care about that stuff.

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