site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32253 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.

I can see some similar parallels here. From Hatred towards the mother-state, lack of a unifying identity that is separate from the mother-state and fostering snakes in their own backyard.

Pakistan, Ukraine, Ireland... anyone else?

I would argue (North) Macedonia. In opposition to Bulgaria rather than Greece.

To be fair Macedonia had always been a fairly distinct region with its own ethnic religious makeup. It’s also where half the ruling class of the early Turkish Republic came from coincidentally including Ataturk himself who is from Thessaloniki (a Jewish-Turkish-Bulgarian city of historical Macedonia until Greeks took over and ethnically cleansed everyone else).

It’s not super clear to me why the current version of Macedonia is so anti-Bulgaria.

The Bulgarian perspective is that North Macedonia to them is a lot like what Moldova is to Romania, that is that it's an identity constructed in the past by a bigger power to strengthen their hold of the region.

Moldovans in general seem somewhat agreeable or at worst ambivalent towards the claim that they are Romanians, but the people of North Macedonia seem very invested in their new national identity. They've engaged in some weird historical revisionism over the years, and the Bulgarians have viewed this as a kind of erasure of Bulgarian history.

England was supposed to be loving and caring mother of Ireland?

Obligatory Soviet joke is in order.

Teacher: Lil Peter, who are your parents?

Petya: Our great leader Stalin is my father, and our great Soviet country is my mother!

Teacher: You are smart boy. What you want to be when you grow up?

Petya: An orphan.

edit: link fixed

England was still the only nation willing to care about them i.e. she was willing to annex them, at least.

England was still the only nation willing to care about them i.e. she was willing to annex them, at least.

The Spanish are not amused with this answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Spain_relations#Early_relations

In 1554-58 Philip Prince of Asturias was married to Mary I and was named as titular King of Ireland in the Papal Bull Ilius ad quem. As a result, during the first plantations of Ireland what is now County Offaly was shired as "King's County", and Philipstown (now Daingean) was named in his honour, the first Irish place named after someone from Spain. Soon after Mary's death he succeeded as Philip II of Spain.

In 1601, Spain supported Irish rebels fighting against England during the Nine Years War, and especially during the Siege of Kinsale. At the time, the Catholics of Ireland saw Spain as a potential liberator of their country from Protestant England and in 1595 Hugh O'Neill offered the crown of Ireland to Philip II of Spain. Philip refused the offer, having already been the titular King of Ireland.

England was supposed to be loving and caring mother of Ireland?

I think the mother nation here is intended in a different way. It’s clear both Ukraine and Pakistan used to be just some subregions of a greater civilisation with minor cultural differences. If early 20th century history worked out slightly differently the chances are they would never exist.

It’s clear both Ukraine and Pakistan used to be just some subregions of a greater civilisation with minor cultural differences.

Most of Ukraine was indeed a part of Poland/Lithuania for 300 years, and large parts were beyond that, as well. I'm sure that's not what is meant here, though, but it's still worth noting that the idea that Ukraine and Russia have been together forever and ever is rather tendentious - it requires an assumption that Kyivan Rus is in perfect equivalence to current Russia, for one, and the RSFSR/Ukraine relationship within Soviet Union has its own complications, as well.

Regarding Pakistan, I can't find it any longer, but I remember an interesting Quora post making the point that the territories currently forming Pakistan have actually spent surprisingly little time being a part of the same political unit as the (most of the) rest of India, and most of that time was during explicitly Muslim empires or other foreign rule - for instance, the British only managed to make headway in Pakistan starting from 1830s, and the British conquest of former Durrani territories in current Pakistan really only got going around some decades later.

Most of Ukraine was indeed a part of Poland/Lithuania for 300 years, and large parts were beyond that, as well.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The expression "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" has indeed been in use for hundreds of years in Russia, Poland and also Lithuania, but this is a geographic phrase applied to the same borderland or border/outer region located between the two powers and its inhabitants (this is what the word literally means).

I meant the current territory of Ukraine, here. The point being that the Ukrainian and Russian populations have lived in separate states for centuries before the formerly-Polish territories fell under the Russian Empire control.

Of course, other parts of Ukraine weren't controlled by Poland at any point, but most of those weren't controlled by Russia, either, during that period, but rather by the Golden Horde and the various other Khanates, and were then resettled - as far as I've understood - chiefly from Ukraine.

That’s true. A bit difficult for me to imagine how such a cultural divide is being bridged over by the current nationalist Ukraine. Turkey has its fair share of nation building monstrosities but at least virtually all of its peoples and territories had been the part of same empire since like forever.

The Republic Ireland as such has done markedly better than those two with independence.

How bad can a country located in Northern Europe and didn’t enter the WW2 do for itself in the 20th century realistically though?

See Ireland, Northern.

Also not as bad as Pakistan or Ukraine, but a lot worse than Ireland in terms of ethnic conflict.

Also, Spain, which stayed out of WW2, but nonetheless managed to have a civil war that was even nastier than Ireland's and a very long period of fascism/post-fascism (rather than just De Valera's long fantasy of a Celtic Catholic leprechaun kingdom.)

Isn’t their GDP per capita roughly equal to Wales? I don’t think they could keep up such alright economic standards with so much ethnic violence if they were located in any other part of the world

Fair point. I suppose that raises the further question, "What's wrong with Wales?", but we don't have all week.

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