site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33513 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wow, Germany was provoked into invading Poland; because, they were not just handed Polish land on a silver platter. What an argument.

That's pretty far away from the argument, and quite irrelevant to the passage you are quoting.

Poland, by refusing to hand over Danzig and working through Germany to get what they wanted, were aligning themselves with Britain and the US to get what they wanted. What's being highlighted is that Poland made the decision to stand against Germany on the basis that they had the backing of the US and Britain. A basis that, according to Flynn, was being heavily pushed on the Poles by the US.

Considering the US and Britain didn't have any ability to stand by their word, going against Germany was maybe the worst decision ever made by Polish statesmen. Getting some of the worst of the war and post-war occupation.

going against Germany was maybe the worst decision ever made by Polish statesmen

Given that Germans planned to murder or enslave Poles, what was the alternative? (RP II leaders made numerous stupid decisions, not surrendering to country that wants to exterminate you was hardly one of them - it was at least worth trying to defend and winning was plausible even if very unlikely)

You've replied to multiple comments of mine saying the same thing. I don't care for your hysterics, but it would be much more manageable to steer the conversation somewhere productive if you could keep them to a single comment, thanks.

It is far away from the argument, but it's also far more correct. Note that your framing is selectively allocating agency to the Poles and the Brits/Germans to choose in response to the German demands, just as Flynn's framing attributes agency to the American influence driving others decisions, but neither address that the Germans themselves had the agency in not only making unreasonable demands, but also the agency to not make those demands. The dictator is not an immovable fact of nature, for which there is no reasoning and agency only exists with the responder. The dictator is an agent, and has used their agency to posit the demand in the first place.

Avoiding this point- that people are resisting unreasonable German demands- is required to credibly claim that the Poles were unreasonable in not compromising to them, because there is no failure in reason or competence to resist the unreasonable. But the German Nazis were being unreasonable, and the other actors were being reasonable in resisting the unreasonable, and so re-establing the actual originating context- that the Germans were the originating actors and making unreasonable demands- is the more correct point for conveying not the argument, but the actual context the argument is trying to ignore.

Your contention relies on the Germans requests being unreasonable when you could just as easily say that they weren't. Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism and what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.

My argument isn't selective about anything. I think you should step back and recognize just what narrative is being revised. Hitler could have done things differently, but the obvious case here is that so could everyone else. In the context of general WW2 narratives that shovel all blame on Hitler in particular, and to a lesser extent the Treaty of Versailles, there exists an obvious angle of blame that is never talked about lest it draw attention away from the great myths we have created out of Hitler and the holocaust.

Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism

No, it would not go better for Poland given that Germans genuinely consider Poles as subhumans.

what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.

that particular stupidity solved nothing, was mistaken and resulted in several millions of innocent people being murdered

You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.

You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.

Less antagonism, please.

No, it would not go better for Poland given that Germans genuinely consider Poles as subhumans.

Please stop telling lies. The Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans. Hitler said of slavs that they were docile so long they had food and drink.

that particular stupidity solved nothing, was mistaken and resulted in several millions of innocent people being murdered

Please engage with statements in context. This is a waste of time.

You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.

This isn't an argument and makes no sense since I have made no pro-slavery or pro-mass-murder statements.

The Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans. Hitler said of slavs that they were docile so long they had food and drink.

Are you now in full scale denial? Germans proceeded to murder people who were not docile.

Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans

Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway. And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.

They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.

Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway.

West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.

And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.

Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.

They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.

Are you claiming that killings in Poland were limited to soldiers? If no, how this is relevant?

Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.

There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.

No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.

There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.

West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.

More comments

Your contention relies on the Germans requests being unreasonable when you could just as easily say that they weren't.

It would be very easy to say many false things, but they would remain false, hence why not even you claim that the German grivance narrative driving the demands was justified.

Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism and what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.

Their reward would have been to be colonized, treated as subhuman, and progressively enslaved and exterminated, as per the policy statements and intentions of the German rieche.

My argument isn't selective about anything.

It is very selective about many things.

I think you should step back and recognize just what narrative is being revised. Hitler could have done things differently, but the obvious case here is that so could everyone else.

This is irrelevant to the reasonableness of other people, as Hitler did NOT do things differently, and people were making decisions based on what he DID do, which was unreasonable by standards both contemporary to now and contemporary to then.

In the context of general WW2 narratives that shovel all blame on Hitler in particular, and to a lesser extent the Treaty of Versailles,

These narratives are false, not least because Stalin had his fair share in allying with Hitler, and the Treaty of Versailles was a red herring that was not a justified grievance for German actions.

there exists an obvious angle of blame that is never talked about lest it draw attention away from the great myths we have created out of Hitler and the holocaust.

There are no great myths of Hitler or the holocaust. There is banality of incompetence and evil, and those who wish to dismiss it away in their mediocrity.

It would be very easy to say many false things, but they would remain false, hence why not even you claim that the German grivance narrative driving the demands was justified.

I don't pretend to know either way which geopolitical claims are more justified since I assume all actors are demanding what bests suits them at the time. And the world that would have been if things had gone differently is not known to anyone. Considering how easy you find it to say and believe false things I can only question your confidence.

Their reward would have been to be colonized, treated as subhuman, and progressively enslaved and exterminated, as per the policy statements and intentions of the German rieche.

As per war propaganda driven by those who were at war with Germany. The Germans said the same thing about the allies.

It is very selective about many things.

?

This is irrelevant to the reasonableness of other people, as Hitler did NOT do things differently, and people were making decisions based on what he DID do, which was unreasonable by standards both contemporary to now and contemporary to then.

"Reasonableness" in this context is nonsense. There was nothing 'reasonable' about Germany playing second fiddle to Britain and France whilst the Soviet Union amassed power. Though it's much easier to simply retroactively assign reason to the victors.

There are no great myths of Hitler or the holocaust. There is banality of incompetence and evil, and those who wish to dismiss it away in their mediocrity.

You rely on these myths to maintain your viewpoints. The Germans weren't evil and relying on verbal constructs to sneak such words into the conversation is all you have. Since your viewpoint relies on condemnation of the evil vs good rather than objectivity and analysis.

I don't pretend to know either way which geopolitical claims are more justified

And I know that German claims of being superior to Slavs and Jews and being entitled to murder and enslave them were wrong and not justified. In the end even Hitler renounced claim of German superiority.

The Germans weren't evil

Germans deliberately murdered and enslaved millions of innocent people, planned to do more on that on gigantic scale with large scale genocide.

Feel free to call it differently, for me "were evil" is a fitting description for people doing it, but I would be happy with more descriptive version.

And I know that German claims of being superior to Slavs and Jews and being entitled to murder and enslave them were wrong and not justified. In the end even Hitler renounced claim of German superiority.

What are you even saying? How does this relate to any of what I wrote? 'I know this and that!'

Germans deliberately murdered and enslaved millions of innocent people, planned to do more on that on gigantic scale with large scale genocide.

Then why did the person I was replying to use the concept 'banality of evil'? There's no need for you in this conversation, given your differing views to the person I was replying to, especially since you are making no sense in relation to what was being discussed by us.

Feel free to call it differently, for me "were evil" is a fitting description for people doing it, but I would be happy with more descriptive version.

I am doing so and I don't care one bit for what you prefer given your comically simplistic view on history.

What are you even saying? How does this relate to any of what I wrote? 'I know this and that!'

You try to present situation like Third Reich was in any way on the same moral/ethical level as others. It is blatantly untrue (thought USSR came close, maybe close enough to be on the same level)

I was having a conversation with another person before you showed up with a bunch of nonsense, the relevance of which you can't substantiate when asked. You have been antagonistic and rude and I have no reason to put any value of your subjective moral/ethical opinions, which never held any relevance to the conversation in the first place.

More comments

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