site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33253 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are the Israelis just better than PR, cunningly doing bad things to the Palestinian side under the radar

There are some elements of this. Israel occasionally does shitty/illiberal stuff that isn't widely publicized. There's a specific flavor for these activities. They're all too complex to explain in a tweet, so the masses of lefty Palestinian propagandists can't describe them effectively and Israel "gets away with it".

That being said, it still pales in comparison to the absurdly violent and irrational behavior of Palestine. All it really does is prove that the whole situation does retain some elements of ambiguity and moral greyness.

There's a specific flavor for these activities. They're all too complex to explain in a tweet, so the masses of lefty Palestinian propagandists can't describe them effectively and Israel "gets away with it".

I can see how this could be an effective strategy on the part of the Israelis, but The Motte seems like an ideal place to pick a few choice anecdotes in a longer form to sway readers. I, at least, would be interested in reading a few examples.

Conversely, appealing to an amorphous blob of never-enumerated misbehaviors is also a fairly common media strategy (see "X is problematic" in recent years).

Is it not rational to assume that any state actor will make missteps, especially in a highly-contentious area like the middle east? I'm not going to go on a deep fact-finding mission with rich sources but:

  1. Slaps on the wrist for IDF soldiers committing (in my mind) significant offenses.

  2. Disproportionate retaliation during conflicts where palestinian losses are 1-2 orders of magnitude greater and include non-combatants. I seem to recall a cycle of violence where ~ 20 israeli soldiers were killed vs 2,000 palestinian deaths (mostly combatants, some civvies).

  3. General discrimination and tiered citizenship for arab citizens, with a lot of complex court and legal wrangling to justify additional settlements or evict arabs.

You can push away 1 by saying "well every armed conflict has some psychos in it". Item 2: the indiscriminate (being extremely charitable) targeting of israeli civilians by palestine justifies a great K/D, plus Israel can't help having an effective military. Number 3 can be excused by pointing out that a lot of these racist policies are extremely effective at preventing terrorism.

These are pragmatic approaches for a state surrounded by various actors who want them wiped off the planet, sure. What you can't say is that any of these things could be classified as a liberal policy.

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