site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   28178 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.

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