site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Look it's not complicated, this takes a certain amount of ressources and benefits America, and America alone, tremendously. Who else?

Russia wouldn't destroy their own investment they can just turn off the stream.

I've heard multiple theories of the actual op, including the British being the actual executants but always for US interest, because who else would want to switch energy dependency from Russia to them and properly sever the russo-german tie.

"Russia" is not a monolith. There are plenty of Russians, some quite powerful, with lots to gain from destroying the pipeline.

Restricting ourselves to people with access to sufficient ressources to pull off such an operation: who and for what reason? The non state actors with sufficient ressources that I know of don't seem to me like they would benefit.

Restricting ourselves to people with access to sufficient ressources to pull off such an operation: who and for what reason? The non state actors with sufficient ressources that I know of don't seem to me like they would benefit.

This restriction doesn't meaningfully narrow it down, since every power in the geographic neighborhood and many outside would qualify. It's not like boats and diving equipment and explosives are the sole scope of a superpower.

For motive, there can many multiple and even overlapping motivations, both externally oriented (geopolitical advantage) and internal (domestic political maneuverings). Simply hoping to have the Americans be blamed would be a motive.

https://twitter.com/BadBalticTakes/status/1623606025071783936?s=20&t=PXShQfsqToxfHV3qYYjzkg

Hersh himself acknowledges how the pipeline would be politically unviable during Russia’s full scale war. That means the continued existence of the pipeline is far more valuable only to someone who could replace Putin and change the course he wants Russia totally committed to. Putin’s top priority is remaining in power at all cost. He would sacrifice an incentive to replace him & end war.

Hersh himself acknowledges how the pipeline would be politically unviable during Russia’s full scale war.

How does he figure? Isn't Russia shipping gas to Germany via a surface pipeline through Ukraine right now? Doing the same thing but not transiting the war-zone should be just as viable.

That might have been Putins plan at the outset, but then (Wikipedia):

Scholz suspended certification of Nord Stream 2 on 22 February 2022 in consequence of Russia's recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics and the deployment of troops in territory held by the DPR and LPR.[40]

Now, the Germans might theoretically have realized that it was pretty weird that they were still buying gas but not approving this specific pipeline, but in practice, it seems very unlikely that that Nord Stream 2 would ever deliver gas while the war was ongoing. E.g. this Metaculus question goes down to 5% after Sholz announcement: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5170/nord-stream-2-be-completed-before-2025/

Since we are basically mindreading Putin here, it kind of doesn't matter what metaculus or twitter randos think the likelihood of the pipeline being certified was -- I can't mindread Putin either, but "sell as much gas as possible on the international market" seems to best serve his war aims. And I can easily imagine a plan in which Germany caves during a hard winter, which again seems like the sort of thing Putin would like.

Sure, we are mindreading: so is Hersh and everyone else in this discussion: It's a discussion about motives, thus we are mindreading.

And I can easily imagine a plan in which Germany caves during a hard winter, which again seems like the sort of thing Putin would like.

Putins plan likely looked like your scenario above (or even "Germany is weak and decadent and they won't cancel Nord Stream 2 to begin with"). Then Germany made it very clear that they wouldn't reopen Nord Stream 2 (hence the 5% on the prediction market) and they managed to stock up on gas and otherwise prepare for the winter much better than expected. Also Russia seems to have underestimated the west in all their plans everywhere (thus the fiasco of the invasion) so they might realize from that general principle that they have likely been underestimating Germany in this specific case. So Putin realized that this plan wasn't going to work, so he went for another option.

Your argument seems grounded on that Nord Stream 2 was viable after the invasion. I have tried to present evidence to the contrary but it seems I haven't convinced you. What evidence would make you change your mind? Do you have any evidence for your position, beyond "I can imagine it"?

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