site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32334 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And they have deprived a third of their population of the right to vote on the basis of ethnicity.

None of the Baltic countries has "deprived a third of their population of the right to vote on the basis of ethnicity", this assuredly referring to stateless post-Soviet citizens in Estonia and Latvia (not Lithuania, incidentally). Currently ca 9-10 % of Latvian and 7-8 % of Estonian population has the non-citizen status; this was not based on ethnicity but on the basis of becoming resident in these countries during Soviet occupation times (in other words, people descending from Estonian or Latvian Russian minorities that had existed there before the Soviet occupation gained citizenship among the others). Of course the noncitizen numbers were larger in the past decades, but many of them have been naturalized since.

It was a decision clearly motivated by nationalism. If this did not embarrass the leaders of the EU, then the AZOV regiment will definitely not embarrass them.

That still definitely sounds to me like something the EU would never tolerate against any other ethnic group. You would likely get jail time in Germany for even championing stripping new comers of their citizenship.

Again, it wasn't done against one ethnic group. The group of stateless citizens included Ukrainians, Azeris etc. in addition to Russians.

Estonia and Latvia did this under rather special circumstances. In the Baltic countries, the historical view - with justification - is that the countries were illegally occupied in 1940-1991, with the legal state continuity instead being carried by the exile governments abroad. The fall of Soviet Union then meant the end of occupation; in this view, nobody was stripped of the Estonian/Latvian citizenship, since legally the newcomers had never even held it, as no citizenship application had been processed by a legitimate government in those countries.

Of course, this did lead to a fair mess regarding the status of the noncitizens and the fact that Lithuania solved this issue differently despite a similar history to other Baltic countries complicates things, but it's still important to remember what the legal justification for all of this is, insofar as Estonia and Latvia view the issue.

with the legal state continuity instead being carried by the exile

For multiple generations? That's just a ridiculous legal fiction. "Actually this group people born and raised in foreign countries who have never held any political power within you or your parent's lifetime was your true government all along. Oh, and they're now deciding who in the past few generations was a real citizen and who was not."

Well, let's say your country was occupied by some foreign country. The government flees into exile while the foreign country installs a puppet government which then okays an annexation to the said foreign land. Would you instantly consider the exile government to have lost legitimacy? During WW2 era this happened to many countries (the Dutch, say), and it's generally considered that the Dutch government didn't instantly lose its legitimacy when this happened.

Of course, if you believe that the exile government is legitimate, the question becomes when the loss of legitimacy would then happen. It's not like the exile governments consisted just of "people born and raised in foreign countries", the last exile PM and acting President of the Estonian exile government had been citizens of Estonia before the annexation.

That's just a ridiculous legal fiction.

All discussion of legality is a discussion of fiction, what's your point?

My point was clearly stated. Let's not do the thing where we pretend not to understand common and clear phrases.

What phrase?

"Legal fiction".

Indeed, it sounds rather far-fetched and just done out of spite.

When Slovenia became independent it offered those of her residents that were citizens of other Yugoslav republics, mostly gasterbaiters who came to Socialist Republic of Slovenia during the time when it was under communist occupation, to apply for Slovene citizenship. Those that refused to do so, were treated as foreigners.

But unhappy that their hedging of support for Slovenia wasn't ignored, they ultimately appealed to the ECHR, which considered the newly independent state in the wrong, and "The Erased" to be correct.

Edit: While here Slovenia was condemned for its discrimination against non-Slovenes, the Foibe massacres and the forceful removal of Gottschee Germans, two much more violent affairs, went unpunished.

gasterbaiters

Gastarbeiter. Capitalized, e and a in their correct places, and it's already plural.

Oxford dictionary disagrees with you

I don’t think weird German grammar rules keep applying when English decides absorb a word

It is a sign of the sad times we live in and of the sad state of German politics that this has not sparked a shooting war between Germany and Oxford University Press.

Are you confident the German army could win that war?

No, but as has recently been discussed in the Motte: Sometimes it's better to fight and die for an important principle than to make compromise with sin.

This sounds rather like an Isolated Demand for Leniency. Any government who really dislikes their previous government can declare the preceding regime illegitimate/illegal and then do whatever the hell they want with people who became resident in the intervening times? I think not. If the Trumpists came out with rock-solid evidence that the election really WAS stolen, tomorrow, and subsequently Trump'24 (or '23) nullifies all citizenships granted since Jan 2020, do you think the Blue Tribe is just going to sit there nodding "This is legit because it's what the Baltics did" as X million mostly-Mexican-"Americans" get repatriated to Guadalajara?

Because I think they'd raise merry hell.

"Disparate impact = discrimination" and all that.

Besides, where exactly is the evidence that the Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged? If that's their basis for yelling "illegal government" then I think they need better evidence.

Besides, where exactly is the evidence that the Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged?

Is there any indicator that they were unique in being not rigged?

From quick look 1940 vote (after Russia invaded central Europe together with Nazi Germany) was blatantly rigged ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Parliament - Lithuania supposedly had 99.2% communist vote with 95.5% turnout, Estonia 92.2% and 81.6%, Latvia 97.6% and 94.7% )

Referendum in Poland run by USSR at that time was clearly falsified.

Why on Earth you would assume that USSR run elections in conquered country were not blatantly rigged?

(I admit that I have not found sources how 1945 were run or even good mention of them, but if Russians have not falsified them - then I would be really surprised)

If that's their basis for yelling "illegal government" then I think they need better evidence.

Being invaded is quite good evidence.

Needing to falsify elections is also a good hint.

Repeated protests that in 1991 were not crushed even by running over protestors with tanks are also quite good evidence.

People declaring independence as soon as Russia lost its power and trying to get away from it is also a good hint.

Any government who really dislikes their previous government can declare the preceding regime illegitimate/illegal and then do whatever the hell they want with people who became resident in the intervening times?

If previous government was result as invasion by oppressive regime, blatantly oppressed people and independence had clear support - then surely you can do this.

I don't think any Baltic countries ran referendums of elections in 1945.

Looking at the election in Estonia in 1940, electing the parliament that rushed through the annexation:

Parliamentary elections were held in Estonia on 14 and 15 July 1940 alongside simultaneous elections in Latvia and Lithuania. The elections followed the Soviet occupation of the three countries. As was the case in Latvia and Lithuania, the elections in Estonia were blatantly rigged.[1][2] They were also unconstitutional, since only seats for the lower chamber of the Riigikogu, the Chamber of Deputies, were contested; the upper chamber, the National Council, had been dissolved and was never reconvened. According to August Rei, one of independent Estonia's last envoys to Moscow, under the Estonian constitution, the Chamber of Deputies had "no legislative power" apart from the National Council.[3]

The Estonian Working People's Union, a Communist front group, was the only party allowed to run and won all 80 seats, allegedly with 92.8% of the votes cast and the remaining 7.2% having been declared invalid. The newly elected "People's Riigikogu" declared the Estonian SSR on 21 July and requested admission to the Soviet Union the following day. The request was approved by the Soviet government on 6 August.[4]

The elections followed the Soviet occupation of Estonia in June. The Communist Party established the Estonian Working People's Union to run in the elections, whilst despite having only three days to organise, the opposition put forward 78 candidates in 66 of the 80 Riigikogu constituencies.[2] However, Prime Minister Johannes Vares was ordered by Soviet politician Andrei Zhdanov to remove opposition candidates from the ballot.[5] Opposition candidates were required to present a manifesto within a few hours, which most of them did.[2] However, almost all were subsequently removed by a mixture of threats, violence and invalidations.[2] Only one opposition candidate remained; Jüri Rajur-Liivak, who was later arrested along with the other removed candidates.[5]

I don't think any Baltic countries ran referendums of elections in 1945.

Well, that is a good way to make impossible to provide evidence that "Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged" :)

And for 1940 ones I will just requote:

was the only party allowed to run

Seriously, anyone that is hearing about USSR-run elections and is not wondering "how they falsified them" is poorly informed.

Especially annexation "referenda" in just conquered areas, the same goes for what Russia run recently in occupied Ukraine.

I really don't see how this legal justification is relevant here. The same justification could be used for some type of ethnic cleansing in about half the countries in existence, and everyone is well aware the Europeans wouldn't stand for it then.

The group of stateless citizens included Ukrainians, Azeris etc. in addition to Russians

Same thing. Stripping large groups of people of their citizenship does not become any more supportable because you are doing it to some adjacent groups as well.

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