site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34999 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

He wanted Russia to be accepted into 'the West' (or I should say NATO).

Obviously. Given that purpose of NATO was to counter Russia[1] (for very good reason) and Russian aggression, especially in Europe, then getting fox into henhouse and wrecking it would be a great idea. For Putin and Russian imperialism.

Fortunately it has not happened.

[1] At least from perspective of Poland.

but as a peer

Have you read source that you provided? This is untrue claim and contradicted by your own source.

Given that purpose of NATO was to counter Russia

The original purpose of NATO was to counter USSR, not Russia. There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

Fortunately it has not happened.

Ukraine is going to be an economic and demographic shithole after this is over and the EU is stuck being dependent on US for at least the next half a century. Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests? Why am I even asking, for a pole it for sure is.

Have you read source that you provided? This is untrue claim and contradicted by your own source.

I have. Have you? Here's words directly from horse's mouth.

Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

There is no country called America or Britain. Proper names are for tombstones.

The USSR was the successor state of the Russian Empire for a reason, and Russia was the successor state of the USSR for a reason too. These were all Russian-dominated states.

Moreover, from the perspective of people like the Poles, the USSR was the Russian Empire + communism.

Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests? Why am I even asking, for a pole it for sure is.

I will happily admit that yes, whether I or my family or my nation will be oppressed by Russia means to me more than X million dead in second Congo civil war or gas price.

Second, I am fine with "acknowledging its interests" - and then countering where interests diverge from ours.

Third, no idea why you think that accepting Russia into NATO would help. They would still do the same, and would make harder to counter them.

The original purpose of NATO was to counter USSR, not Russia. There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

As far as geopolitics are concerned there is a clear succession from Grand Duchy of Moscow, Tsardom of Russia, Russian Empire, Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, USSR and Russian Federation.

I use Russia to refer to imperialist, aggressive and problematic country that used to be named USSR and after it got less powerful and lost ability to occupy part of invaded areas rebranded itself to Russian Federation.

I have. Have you? Here's words directly from horse's mouth.

Have you noticed "George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’" line? Exactly the first sentence of the article and clearly presenting that Russia was not ready to get rid of primary problem - its imperialistic ambitions.

And even if we assume that ‘countries that don’t matter’ is misinterpretation and "did not want to wait in line" is understandable... Then "did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process" from the first paragraph below photo is not at all.

Germany managed to give up militaristic imperial ambitions, hopefully Russia will crash and burn during current war enough to do the same and without selling their nukes to Iran or something.

Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

Russia was not ready to be an equal partner, see above.

Germany managed to give up militaristic imperial ambitions

I think that's a very flattering way to describe what happened which obscures why it won't happen for Russia and China.

Germany and Japan didn't so much give up imperial ambitions as they were ripped from their cold, nearly dead hands and then faced significant occupation and social engineering (especially in Germany)

As a nuclear power, this is impossible for Russia. If it isn't then - as you yourself worry - something has gone horribly wrong and it probably won't be to our benefit.

Ukraine is going to be an economic and demographic shithole after this is over and the EU is stuck being dependent on US for at least the next half a century. Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests?

Which perspective are you taking here, EU or US? Because the arguments are not interchangeable. One can argue that from a US perspective, eastern europe is far away and unimportant and should be granted to russia for cheap. Otoh, for western europe, it's their backyard, their strategic sphere of influence. That euphemism of 'acknowledging russian interests', a russian geopolitical triumph would really mean brutal vassalage for eastern europeans, and partial finlandization for the stronger/further away european states. Avoiding that fate is definitely worth a lot of damage and some dependence on the US for western europeans. As to poles and ukrainians, understandably they are not keen on their countries being handed over because americans think they are too far away.

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