site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32274 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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.

No. No, they really don’t.

To which part it refers? That Russia wants to be treated as superpower? That they are not one? That they demanded removal of all NATO military from Poland (which includes Polish military)?

And what’s your empirical evidence for this?

For what? For that I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed?

If the Warsaw Pact incorporated Mexico and Canada, the US would complain about being surrounded by an encroaching military alliance.

And? Not sure whether you prefer realpolitik or some naively idealistic answer but neither works out well for Russia.

To which part it refers? That Russia wants to be treated as superpower? That they are not one?

Yes.

For what? For that I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed?

Yes.

And? Not sure whether you prefer realpolitik or some naively idealistic answer but neither works out well for Russia.

Then you should have no problem with the way they’ve responded, given that the US is unlikely to behave any differently in comparable circumstances.

I think that for empirical evidence whether I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed - then comment here suffices:

I am fine with it

To which part it refers? That Russia wants to be treated as superpower? That they are not one?

Which of two? First seems obvious, second is also obvious given that they are unable to win war against Ukraine supplied a bit by NATO countries and run into series of hilarious failures.

Then you should have no problem with the way they’ve responded, given that the US is unlikely to behave any differently in comparable circumstances.

  1. USA would likely respond differently, and in fact as far as Canada goes they already proactively responded differently by ensuring that Canada and USA cooperates and Canada benefits from powerful USA rather than being endangered. (not sure about Mexico)

  2. not sure why you think that I would be fine with USA responding in such way, or even in a noticeably less evil and murderous one. I am not some cultist treating all USA actions as fine (and yes, I know about United Fruit Company and Abu Ghraib).

I am fine with it

So I’ll ask for a third time. What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?

Which of two? First seems obvious.

Based on what?

USA would likely respond differently.

How so? “Please Mr. Putin, will you remove your presence from our borders?” Seems to me to be the kind of think you’re suggesting. Doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thankfully we had a cabinet that didn’t lead with the premise that Khrushchev was a genocidal leader.

I am not some cultist treating all USA actions as fine (and yes, I know about United Fruit Company and Abu Ghraib).

But you sure seem to think it’s the exception and not the rule.

What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?

Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint. His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another. But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.

Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint.

I’m waiting.

His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another.

Is it a crime to believe that? He’s also stated the future of Ukraine was up to its citizens.

But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.

If being anti-NATO expansion makes me a Putin blowjobber, consider me guilty. It’s interesting that for so many here, the consensus seems to be that this conflict began yesterday.

the consensus seems to be that this conflict began yesterday.

war started in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine

full scale invasion started last year

Russian unwanted meddling started far far ago

Is it a crime to believe that?

To believe it - only against the truth. To act on it - also a crime against humanity.

If being anti-NATO expansion makes me a Putin blowjobber, consider me guilty

Your terms are acceptable.

It’s interesting that for so many here, the consensus seems to be that this conflict began yesterday.

That conflict began when Putin decided everything he can see around rightfully belongs to him. That happened sometime in mid 2000s, by my estimate.

So I’ll ask for a third time. What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?

I am not claiming that Putin is a genocidal maniac, and their action while evil and qualifying as war crimes are not Third Reich levels. Though we had terror bombing, kidnappings, rape/looting as accepted (though not sure how high) and so on. But I am aware that all that is relatively normal in war and their main evil was starting war.

Based on what?

Based on their inability to understand that they are not entitled to USSR territory and that their security concerns are not trumping everyones elses security concerns.

How so? “Please Mr. Putin, will you remove your presence from our borders?” Seems to me to be the kind of think you’re suggesting.

I am not 100% naive idealist, that would not work :)

No, likely also war but with less bombing of civilian targets and less hilarious incompetence. Very likely ending with lower civilian death count and lower destruction. And lesser oppression during occupation.

But you sure seem to think it’s the exception and not the rule.

I am claiming that I would prefer to be invaded by USA than Russia, but even more prefer to be not invaded in the first place. And no, I will not buy this books.

… their main evil was starting war.

Did they not make overtures to avoid it? Because they certainly did.

Based on their inability to understand that they are not entitled to USSR territory and that their security concerns are not trumping everyones elses security concerns.

Where did Putin ever claim as much? Go ahead and quote him. I’ll wait.

… with less bombing of civilian targets and less hilarious incompetence.

I wasn’t aware their track record was as bad as the US war in Iraq.

I am claiming that I would prefer to be invaded by USA than Russia, but even more prefer to be not invaded in the first place.

You also seem to prefer being more interested in answering your own questions, and not those that were asked if you. I think this is a good place to leave this conversation.

And no, I will not buy this books.

Or even read them. Be well.

Where did Putin ever claim as much? Go ahead and quote him. I’ll wait.

I have not claimed that Putin personally did so, but I think that https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/ is enough

Russia said on Friday it wanted a legally binding guarantee that NATO would give up any military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine

"withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that were once in the Soviet Union" alone is a nonstarter. And given that Polish army existing at all is also NATO military activity in Eastern Europe this is a total nonstarter.

Oh, and we have

Russia has denied planning an invasion.

I have not claimed that Putin personally did so, but I think that https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-unveils-security-guarantees-says-western-response-not-encouraging-2021-12-17/ is enough

Sounds pretty weak if he wants a security arrangement that’s analogous to what the US imposed on Japan, after World War 2. And given that the Clinton administration immediately broke its commitment to Gorbachev, to not advance one inch to the East, only to immediately expand NATO to the borders of Russia, I can’t say I blame him for wanting such a guarantee. It’s pretty clear you aren’t dealing with honest actors at that point.

Oh, and we have

Russia has denied planning an invasion.

I’ll be sure to remind him to let the US know in advance, next time. Maybe you can admonish the Biden Administration not to follow in the footsteps of the even more egregious infractions of the Neoconservative foreign policy establishment.

Sounds pretty weak if he wants a security arrangement that’s analogous to what the US imposed on Japan, after World War 2.

Russia trying to impose on Poland this kind of arrangements is not going to fly and is not going to happen and Russia is not capable of achieving this. And would be unreasonable, absurd and unfair, though that obviously does not matter much.

Russia was either delusional or not even trying to actually negotiate or just insulting or multiple at once.

I’ll be sure to remind him to let the US know in advance, next time

USA was fully aware of it, Putin's permission was not necessary

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