site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28109 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 18, 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.

I apparently have not been cynical enough with regard to sovereignty in the middle power Western nations.

I don't know. You're not actually indicating a standard of anything to be done that anyone has failed to meet.

You've implicitly criticized the FVEY allies for not presenting a united front, and accused the US of telling other members to do nothing, but the thing about a front is that it advances on an objective. What actual policy is not being done due to the alleged US telling others to do nothing? What, beyond rhetoric, is Canada even asking for?

Before something can be denied, it must be asked for. If it's not being asked for, if there's not a clearly reasonable alternative as opposed to vague gestulating of 'do something!', it's not a cynical take to blame others for not providing it, it's just projection of impotence onto external actors.

Which besides not being cynical, doesn't exactly make sense in the context of specific alliance contexts. FVEY, for example, is an Intelligence alliance, not a defense or economic alliance or common migration zone. There's no obligation or implicit expectation to, say, enact sanctions, conduct retaliatory strikes, or so on in the context of FVEY. It would be quite reasonable if Canada requested/expected Intelligence-related support... which by your implications they did.

The type of alliance matters because it means the type of influence authorities that matter changes. If this assassination is to be treated as, say, a potential casus belli, that wouldn't be a FVEY matter- that would be a NATO matter. But every NATO member's interest in [insert unstated desired response here] matters, because NATO is a consensus-based organization with multiple contemporary examples of the United States not being able to force to decide to its preferences.

So before you be cynical, I'd recommend you be specific. Which alliance structure that Canada is in- and it's in a number other than FVEY- should be responsible for this, in what way, and when/how has Canada even asked them to?

I reject your framing. Your use of the FVEY acronym does not lend weight to your argument that because 'Well acktually, Five Eyes is just a SIGINT focused intelligence sharing apparatus', and because of this it does not imply other deep historical alliances based on shared cultural backgrounds and systems of government under the international rule of law.

You seem to be asking for an NATO article 5 or the like formal agreement signed by the US and the other partners, the absence of which implies that partners are under no expectation to intervene when their allies' territorial sovereignty has been violated. There is precedent that this has not been necessary in the past to provide support and retaliation when assassinations have been conducted against allied nation's citizens on their home soil.. Note the response of non-NATO members (such as Australia) in expelling diplomats in solidarity in the example.

What, beyond rhetoric, is Canada even asking for?

Various news articles have described that this discussion took place out of the public view. I presume Canada has asked for support in sanctioning India in some form, potentially expelling diplomats as occurred in the example above.

As for the rest of your post, I will concede that perhaps all of the Five Eyes partners decided together that they would not support Canada beyond toothless statements of concern and it wasn't the US doing so unilaterally with their outsized influence. It does not change my cynicism of the value of these alliances when partners have other interests.

Not that my cynicism was purely directed at the alliances themselves. It was also concerning the ability of Middle Power western nations to individually defend their sovereignty against the interests of their suzerain and the machinations of neutral/friendly contemptuous powers. Not doing so will only encourage future acts of interference.

Edit: a couple of words for clarity

I reject your framing.

That's nice, but since I was asking for yours, that's kind of illustrating the point.

Your use of the FVEY acronym does not lend weight to your argument that because 'Well acktually, Five Eyes is just a SIGINT focused intelligence sharing apparatus', and because of this it does not imply other deep historical alliances based on shared cultural backgrounds and systems of government under the international rule of law.

Since that was not the argument, it doesn't really matter that it doesn't lend weight to an argument I didn't make.

It does, however, demonstrate the criticism that you're not actually addressing the point of what alliance is not being honored to do what.

You seem to be asking for an NATO article 5 or the like formal agreement signed by the US and the other partners, the absence of which implies that partners are under no expectation to intervene when their allies' territorial sovereignty has been violated. There is precedent that this has not been necessary in the past to provide support and retaliation when assassinations have been conducted against allied nation's citizens on their home soil.. Note the response of non-NATO members (such as Australia) in expelling diplomats in solidarity in the example.

I'm not asking for a NATO article 5. I'm asking what alliance you think is supposed to do what that they refused to do. You are avoiding all three parts of the question - what alliance format is relevant, what that alliance should do, and who refused.

Moreover, you've already countered your own position repeatedly, because your own prior post already had the alliance structure provide support- in identifying that it was India- while your own latest example actually has both a relevant alliance context- NATO which stands in contrast to the perpetrator identified- and is an alliance structure where the US demonstratably has not been able to bend the alliance to accept policies the US government wants. This not only undermines the appeal to ambiguity of general-form alliances vis-a-vis alliances for a purpose, but does so by counter-examples to American hyperagency

What, beyond rhetoric, is Canada even asking for?

Various news articles have described that this discussion took place out of the public view.

While this certainly is one form of the motte and bailey the site is named for, inventing grievances from an admitted lack of information is poor grounds for justifying cynicism.

I presume Canada has asked for support in sanctioning India in some form, potentially expelling diplomats as occurred in the example above.

Ass the saying goes, assuming makes an ass out of you, especially when the assumption serves as the justification for further condemnation.

As for the rest of your post, I will concede that perhaps all of the Five Eyes partners decided together that they would not support Canada beyond toothless statements of concern and it wasn't the US doing so unilaterally with their outsized influence. It does not change my cynicism of the value of these alliances when partners have other interests.

Your cynicism is currently unsupported, and immature at best... not least because you have not actually identified what Canada could, let alone should, be doing to produce different results.

Calling statements toothless is a pejorative, but not particularly relevant as far as subjective benchmarks. Sanctioning India in some form could be called toothless. Expelling diplomats is practically pro forma as far as these sort of incidents go, the epitome of doing something just to be seen as doing something, and so would be just as guilty of the condemnation of being too weak and insignificant to deter future infringement. Even a formal declaration of war would be pretty toothless given the, well, toothiness of the Canadian navy.

If everything upto and including war can be dismissed as weak and insignificant, the criticism loses all merit. Hence why you are being asked to proffer a credible standard.

Not that my cynicism was purely directed at the alliances themselves. It was also concerning the ability of Middle Power western nations to individually defend their sovereignty against the interests of their suzerain and the machinations of neutral/friendly contemptuous powers. Not doing so will only encourage future acts of interference.

Since you've yet to establish that the claimed failure occurred, or even a line of response that couldn't be dismissed as toothless and only encouraging future acts of interference...

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