site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38489 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For the same reasons Germans are forced to celebrate year after year the day of their ultimate defeat. The pride in the recent years is about sending a message "resistance is futile".

We don't do that, though. For all of our national self-hate and perpetual condemnation of all that is German, we do not actually celebrate the day of defeat.

We don't do that, though. For all of our national self-hate and perpetual condemnation of all that is German, we do not actually celebrate the day of defeat.

There are no official celebrations of the Day of Europe in Germany?

Official ones maybe, but if so that's a purely bureaucratic affair and does not feature in public consciousness.

Wouldn’t bother me, it was a great thing. I think any german with a conscience had a moral obligation to help the allies and murder any and all authority figures from 1939 onwards, kulak-style. I could argue that the nazis were the ones who really destroyed germanness and caused the deaths of germans, but honestly some things are more important than nationality. I can’t adequately express the disgust I feel towards the worms who thought their duty to the state, or their oaths, trumped morality.

Okay. So whom are you murdering today? Or do we already live in the best of all worlds?

It's tolerable. I try to wait for the mysterious disappearance of my neighbours and my conscription notice before I declare war on society.

I'm sure you will.

I doubt that you will.

In the spirit of charity I hereby express my baseless estimation that I consider it more likely for you to be talking tough than to actually mean what you say, but I have no proof so I suppose I'll take your word for it.

What does talking tough have to do with it? I believe murderous rebellion was justified, and this is presumably what you object to. Or do you agree that it was justified, but assume you would have done nothing out of cowardice? Because Lizzardspawn seemed to imply that it was right and proper for germans to die for Hitler, and my suggested course of action would be "traitorous".

I'm saying your moral absolutism with violent undertones is a luxury belief you would likely be quick to shed were you actually living in wartime Germany. That any one of those "worms" who marched into Russia or France to die for some supposed moral failing had a thousand times the spine of someone who comes in to deride them almost a century after the fact.

So as I said, you do not think my policy was justified, and my spine, yours, theirs, or the lack thereof is irrevelant. Else you’re arguing that their dying out of cowardice, was really courageous. I think they were obligated to murder and treason, but exile, surrender, suicide, or conscientious objection would have been close to okay. Failing that, they may be family, but they were scum who bled and died for nothing and took innocents with them. And even by their own, and Hitler’s standard, they failed and should have died, courtesy of survival of the fittest race.

Nothing personal, I hold similar views about the russian conscripts currently dying, the only difference being, of course, the magnitude of their moral fault. I do not believe in the nuremberg defense: if you lay down your life for your master, his crimes become yours, regardless of your intent.

More comments

Europe Day is on May 9th, the day Russia claims Germany surrendered.

According to EU itself this is not the reason for the Europe Day, though:

Europe Day held on 9 May every year celebrates peace and unity in Europe. The date marks the anniversary of the historic 'Schuman declaration' that set out his idea for a new form of political cooperation in Europe, which would make war between Europe's nations unthinkable. Schuman's proposal is considered to be the beginning of what is now the European Union.

Considering when it was created and the political circumstances around it, I would guess that the day was chosen deliberately.

It's possible the day was closed deliberately, but even then the probable reason would be to blunt and countersignal the Russian Victory Day, not bolster it.

Possibly so, but we still don't celebrate it.

The Third Reich lost the war. It wasn't undone by karmic justice or by a democratic awakening; it lost because it wasn't good enough at violence. This isn't the stuff that the German Culture Of Remembrance is made of. We celebrate the evilness of the nazis and our not being them; we do not celebrate anything that would not mesh with our vaunted pacifism.

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