site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33302 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.

If Russian resources sustain China for a long war or open up a second front in Europe, we have only ourselves to blame.

This comment read very much like something a committed offensive realist would write until you got to this point. All states allegedly are by their nature ruthless actors that will stop and nothing to advocate their own interests, but you, America, you have been a naughty boy and must get on your knees and welcome the whip to atone for your sins.

This is a masochistic perversion of offensive realism.

"by their nature ruthless actors that will stop and nothing to advocate their own interests"

Yes, but interests are based on one's analysis of threat. If the Russians think 'oh the West hate us and if they beat China we're fucked' then they'll join up with China. They certainly do now and have joined up. Whereas, if the Russians thought that we weren't interested in undermining them they'd be more cautious about supporting China. Maybe they'd just try to play both sides off against eachother for their own profit.

I maintain we have a genuine, significant-issue conflict with China about control of the world economy, about dominance of Asia and so on. We should focus on the significant issues first, prioritizing the central front over these small peripheral issues. Back in 1935, the British and French were allies with Mussolini under the Stresa Front, where he guaranteed Austria against Germany. But then Mussolini invaded Ethiopia and the British and French imposed sanctions on Italy in response. Naturally Italy joined up with Germany and enabled the Anschluss. For the sake of Ethiopia, the British and French threw away a well-placed ally and made WW2 into a serious proposition as opposed to a 'home-by-Christmas' conflict. This was an idiotic decision and we should not replicate it.

but you, America, you have been a naughty boy and must get on your knees and welcome the whip to atone for your sins.

I'd prefer 'reaping what one sows'. We (the West) have blown up Libya, Iraq, made a good effort at blowing up Syria. Amongst other things, we've gotten engaged well into Eastern Europe where the risks outweigh the gains. At no point has anyone put serious thought into the consequences of our actions, how the other major powers are responding. When we blew up Iraq, we also torpedoed any hope of North Korea refraining from nuclearization. They, quite reasonably, did not want to be next on the chopping block! Decisionmakers just ignored Burns in 2008 when he said that moving to bring Ukraine into NATO would make anyone remotely near the Kremlin very angry and threatened. Then they act surprised when Russia throws a tantrum and starts interfering with our operations! We cannot ignore the consequences of our actions forever.

Furthermore, what I'm saying is not in conflict with offensive realism. Offensive realism has a central tenet in that state actions are based upon the fear of other states, amongst other things. Perceptions are vital. It is a complex idea that can be interpreted in many ways dependent upon context - furthermore its founder Mearsheimer and I am in agreement on this issue. The benefit of integrating Ukraine into NATO or the Western bloc is not worth the cost of having Russia as a locked-in enemy. We should not flanderize offensive realism as 'attack and advance anywhere', just as even an offensive minded commander would balk at frontal attacks across rivers into well-fortified enemy lines.

See Mearsheimer's quotes:

Great powers are especially vigilant about their security, and when they feel threatened, they invariably take measures to protect themselves. This wariness explains why Russian leaders have stubbornly opposed NATO enlargement since the mid-1990s and why most American realists opposed it as well. Liberals, however, tend to dismiss balance-of-power logic as irrelevant in the twenty-first century. This kind of thinking helps to make liberals less restrained than realists about using military force.

So, what I am saying to you is that even if we are able to turn around Western policy and convince Putin that the West has good intentions, the future of NATO is uncertain, which means a lot of trouble ahead. For all these reasons, I'm quite sure you cannot go back to the status quo ante in Eastern Europe. My bottom line is that we had an excellent situation with regard to European security before [floating the idea of Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership in] 2008. And we, meaning the West, blew it big time.

To argue that Russia’s reaction to NATO expansion was based on “resentment” … is to trivialize the country’s motives. Fear is at the root of Russia’s opposition to the prospect of Ukraine becoming a Western bastion on its border. Great powers always worry about the balance of power in their neighborhoods and push back when other great powers march up to their doorsteps.

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