site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31617 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not a parsimonious explanation. If collusion explains not sending tanks in the case of germany, how do you explain the reluctance to send tanks for similar countries (US italy france etc) ?

US does not want to get involved in a war in Europe. Or at least some part of the US doesn't. That's the same story since WW1. If you ask why US wants to be involved in Libya or Iraq or Somali, but not in Europe - I don't have a good answer for you, it is what it is.

As for the rest of them, its a combination of Russian ties (Germany was leading the way, but Russian money and Russian energy dependency is all over Europe, it's not unique to Germany at all, though France has much less energy dependence due to the developed nuclear production - I always was fascinated how unexpectedly sane French approach in this area has been) and again, reluctance to get involved in a far away conflict that they feel they don't have much stake in.

a whole smattering of reasons. Anyway, it appears germany will give tanks after all, and the US too. That's what I'm talking about. Are you confused by that, is your theory refuted?

Germans could be fighting russians in kiev in 2 years, and you'd still find people saying 'we must not forget their entire political class has been bought by russian money. Ex-Bundeskanzler Schröder...... etc '.

Are you confused by that, is your theory refuted?

I am not confused by that at all. State politics is not a one-bit switch. It is a complex combination of thousands of complex interests. There are powerful interests in Germany against intervening in Ukraine, and less powerful in the US (coming more from isolationist place than anything else, unlike Germany) but still existing. There are also pressure from the other side to help Ukraine, aided by the revelations of more and more war crimes committed by Russians. The outcome of this interplay of interests can change over time, there's nothing confusing here and nothing refuting the existence of these interests. The pro-Russia fraction was powerful in Germany, but its power is not infinite and gets eroded as the war goes on - now to the point that they are too weak to prevent Polish tanks to be sent to Ukraine. One day, hopefully, they'd be so weak they couldn't prevent the same for German tanks. It does not refute their existence at all.

Germans could be fighting russians in kiev in 2 years,

Unlikely, for several reasons. First, if Russians get as far as going into Kiev, the EU would decide the war is lost for Ukraine and would cut the losses. One of the reasons they are increasing the help now because they are seeing their help can do something and not just increase the losses. Second, I do not see Germany committing any number of troops to fight Russia anywhere. Poland - maybe. Estonia or Latvia - maybe. US - very, very unlikely but there's a tiny chance. Germany? No way. Third, German army is right now not exactly in the fighting condition, as I read. They have a lot of iron and so on, but they suffer from long neglect and disarray. I don't think they want to fight anybody.

we must not forget their entire political class has been bought by russian money. Ex-Bundeskanzler Schröder...... etc

Obviously, we must not. Why would we forget the fact, which is true? I don't think removing true information from consideration makes any model better.

now to the point that they are too weak to prevent Polish tanks to be sent to Ukraine. One day, hopefully, they'd be so weak they couldn't prevent the same for German tanks.

No, they are sending their own tanks. These powers of collusion are that weak. They are at present invisible, indistinguishible from null. Again, and in real time, your belief in german-russian collusion has failed to pay dividends.

Unlikely, for several reasons.

That's not the point. Actual boots on the grounds war is just the maximal opposition one state can express in relation to another, I was contrasting it with a belief in collusion between them. In other words, I was trying to find a hypothetical that would falsify your belief. You maintained it, so I can now declare it unfalsifiable.

I don't think removing true information from consideration makes any model better.

True information should always pay rent, and this one's behind.

No, they are sending their own tanks. These powers of collusion are that weak

I haven't seen any actually sent yet. When they arrive, that would be the conclusion, but until they did - they are premature. Over the last year, I have heard "they are sending" a lot of times and at the end, nothing was sent in many cases. So I prefer to see results on the ground.

Again, and in real time, your belief in german-russian collusion has failed to pay dividends.

I am not sure which dividends I should expect from this belief. I think the facts establish the presence of German-Russia ties pretty conclusively, and the facts also establish so far many German promises were delayed or subverted. Not all of them, true, but many were. You are free to believe these are just coincidences, I do not.

In other words, I was trying to find a hypothetical that would falsify your belief.

If you prove me that I have been living in a simulation for the last 10 years, and multiple facts establishing German-Russian ties were not part of actual reality but a fabrication of the authors of this simulation, and did not exist in reality - that would indeed falsify my belief it happened. Short of that, I can not see how pro-Ukrainian faction of German politics overcoming pro-Russian one in the future would falsify existence of the latter in the past.

True information should always pay rent,

I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/making-beliefs-pay-rent

I think this concept works fine for specific set of beliefs - about what is going to happen, but works very poorly for many other sets of beliefs, such as about what already happened and what was the cause of it happening. Obviously, if Germans weren't in bed with Russians, the world would look very different - Schroeder wouldn't work for Gazprom, for one, and Germany would have already supplied (and enabled others to supply) tanks to Russia Ukraine. This did not happen. But asking "what should happen to invalidate this belief" now is silly - it already happened, so nothing in the future would invalidate it, because it has been already validated in the past. It's like telling me to disbelieve the coin I just tossed came out heads, because I seen it come out heads, so regardless of how many times I toss it again, the result of this toss remains "heads". So you declare this belief as "not paying rent" - since it doesn't change anything in the future, and so, by your logic, I should forget it's "heads" and claim ignorance on that. That makes zero sense.

So you declare this belief as "not paying rent" - since it doesn't change anything in the future, and so, by your logic, I should forget it's "heads" and claim ignorance on that.

This collusion, if still present, would change the future.

The question is not whether schröder worked for gazprom, he clearly did, but whether german policy is meaningfully impacted by such things.

I predict germany will continue to act in line with similar countries, not pro-russia.

But asking "what should happen to invalidate this belief" now is silly - it already happened, so nothing in the future would invalidate it, because it has been already validated in the past.

Your belief now is that there is collusion. This should be a falsifiable belief.

My belief, lack of collusion, is falsifiable . If france and italy, say, join a no-fly zone or send jets, but germany doesn't, the belief is falsified.

I’ll recap . Your belief:

  • has failed to give accurate predictions of germany’s policy on ukraine, months ago, and a few hours ago

  • is used to explain behaviour that is unremarkable compared to other countries, forcing you to cook up a specific reason for each country

  • will be maintained no matter what happens

More comments

I presume you mean "Germany would have already supplied tanks to Ukraine"?

More comments

It is a sufficient explanation, not the only explanation.

If in february you were adamant there was collusion (because of German-Russian friendship societies etc), you would have predicted a degree of support for ukraine from germany that would be considerably less than what actually happened. The belief is epistemic dead weight.

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