site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32341 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 am mildly interested in how the quest for Ukrainian nation building will develop my lifetime.

I agree that Ukraine founding fathers and founding myths are lame.

Imagine alternate timeline where CIA during Cold War chose different group of hopeless exiles, timeline where today's Hero of Ukraine(TM) is not this cringe nerd, but this majestic based Chad.

Everything else is the same, but the flags, symbols and songs so much more kino.

But it does not matter at all.

Every nation had to be built sometimes, mostly ad hoc out of very unsavory and contradictory material that just happened to be there at this time and place. Ukraine is no different.

If you are nationalist who sees mankind turned into unified faceless shapeless blob as the worst nightmare, if you see diversity of nations as good thing, you should celebrate, you should be thankful you can see birth of new nation.

Right now they manage to co-opt two very opposing sets of political and philosophical schools, largely due to wartime mobilisation censorship and patriotism. On the one hand the Ukrainian identity is being based on 19th/early 20th century style blood and soil rhetoric. The defenders of white Christian (even pagan) Europe against eastern orc hordes. Unspoiled real Slavs against the crypto-Tatar Muscovites. Real European Christians unlike those Eastern Orthodox peasants. On the other hand their only hope for national survival in this day and age is to tightly integrate with the “GAE”. So the Ukrainian army puts up EU flags in newly reconquered territories. Their parliament is busy rushing through gay agenda bills. Their politicians are making deals with Blackrock and learning the ropes of the WEF circuit.

Nothing contradictory about these positions, they can be resolved easily.

"Ukraine is Europe! What is Europe? Europe is, and always had been, land of free market and LGBTQ+ rights, as opposed to communist homophobic and transphobic orc hordes from the East!"

The more Russia celebrates their past, the more Russia bases its identity against LGBTQ+, the more natural this reaction is.

But when the war ends these two stories cannot coexist for long.

Yes they can.

You cannot outright ban one of the largest churches as well as the linguistic communities in your country and try to enter the Schengen area.

Yes you can.

The nationalist Ukrainian state, if it ever stops being such a poor corrupt shithole

If.

and enters the EU

Millions of Ukrainians already entered EU on their own, and millions more would follow.

will have to cope with millions of African/South Asian/Middle Eastern immigrants as well as the European Court of Human Rights rulings which will not tolerate the blood and soil rhetoric in practice.

Ukraine is already part of Council of Europe, people already complained to ECHR about blatant sexist discrimination and breach of European Convention on Human Rights in today's Ukraine where men, only men, are banned from entering the country and subjected to draft due to their gender identity alone.

ECHR reply.

Compared to this, overlooking some edgy flags and symbols is nothing.

Color me shocked that nobody selected a peasant Anarchist who was easily duped by Bolshevik salami tactics to be the symbol of united Ukrainian nationhood. Instead they had to chose the cringe nerd for the sole but very obvious reason because they knew they could always portray him to the normies as a victim of Nazi repression, because "he was in a concentration camp". (In reality, he was under the equivalent of house arrest under comfortable conditions, because he had qualms about one aspect of the proposed National Socialist European New Order, namely that it didn't include an autonomous Ukrainian state.)

Europe is, and always had been, land of free market and LGBTQ+ rights

sure...lol. We'll see how much of a good political sell this will turn out to be. I suggest you don't hold your breath.

Color me shocked that nobody selected a peasant Anarchist who was easily duped by Bolshevik salami tactics to be the symbol of united Ukrainian nationhood. Instead they had to chose the cringe nerd for the sole but very obvious reason because they knew they could always portray him to the normies as a victim of Nazi repression, because "he was in a concentration camp". (In reality, he was under the equivalent of house arrest under comfortable conditions, because he had qualms about one aspect of the proposed National Socialist European New Order, namely that it didn't include an autonomous Ukrainian state.)

People who were on the German side in the second late unpleasantness are still considered sus (even if they eventually got on their wrong side) , and Bandera is, to use modern woke term, problematic figure, especially in Poland.

In addition of being much more charismatic, Hollywood blockbuster worthy figure, Makhno would not have any of this baggage. (well, the Mennonites might object)

Bandera was picked as Hero(TM) and Founding Father(TM) of Ukraine not only because CIA chose to support OUN, but also because Soviet propaganda made him into Big Bad and gave him in this way great name recognition. Not because of anything he personally did.

In contrast, Soviet propaganda was nearly silent about Anarchists - all Civil War books and movies portrayed it as exclusive struggle of Reds and Whites, with Blacks shown only as ocassional perpetually drunk comic relief guys (and Greens absent completely).

sure...lol. We'll see how much of a good political sell this will turn out to be. I suggest you don't hold your breath.

It worked excellently so far. Look outside of your bubble - general public in Western world loves capitalism and loves LGBTQ+.

You know what Ukrainian nationalists mean when they speak of "Europe", don't you?

You know what Ukrainian nationalists mean when they speak of "Europe", don't you?

What they want Europe to mean does not matter, what Europe really means does matter.

Look at Ukraininan laws that are actually passing now - these are not laws about defending "Aryan race purity", these are laws about deregulation, privatization, restricting labor rights and protecting LGBTQ+ rights.

Good response overall. You are probably right.

not this cringe nerd, but this majestic based Chad.

Man early 20th century was wild. Imagine a 1.65 man being such a chad today.

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