site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26940 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not that it can't be, but anyone observing politics long enough saw these supposed ideas flip depending on what's convenient at the time, so it's hard to take these at face value.

How did the left flip on these ideas? What invasion were they okay with?

North Korea, North Vietnam, Falkland Islands...

I need evidence on these things. Where are the people on the left saying these invasions were okay?

Regarding Falkland Islands, I suspect people defending the British in the Falklands War saw the islands at rightfully British. Not a war of expansion.

You never heard of the anti Vietnam-war protests?! And you're getting the Falkland invasion backwards, a fashy military dictatorship of Argentina was invading, and the UK was moving against the invasion. The left at the time was taking the piss about the whole thing, because they didn't like Thatcher.

A contemporary source on Korea might be harder for me to find, but a film and TV show like M*A*S*H* didn't write itself either.

You never heard of the anti Vietnam-war protests?!

Oh, you're not talking about the US decision to go to war, you're talking about NV's decision to invade SV. That is, you think the left was pro-invasion because it didn't support helping South Vietnam.

...You know what? Fair. I'll give this one to you.

The left at the time was taking the piss about the whole thing, because they didn't like Thatcher.

Let's be clear about which "left" we're talking about. Liberals? Center-left individuals? Radical Leftists? Marxists/Socialists/Communists? Once we clarify that, we can talk about whether they were against the idea of the British sending an army to the Falklands.

A contemporary source on Korea might be harder for me to find, but a film and TV show like MASH didn't write itself either.

MASH was produced towards the end of the Vietnam War and into the years after. You have to separate out Vietnam weariness and disapproval with what attitudes MASH actually captured of the Korean era.

That said, your ultimate point strikes me as misguided. I agree that there was a left which opposed US involvement in Vietnam for a variety of reasons. But there was a big ideological shift - the socialists and communists fell out of favor and continued losing power. The character of that left has changed.

MASH was produced towards the end of the Vietnam War and into the years after. You have to separate out Vietnam weariness and disapproval with what attitudes MASH actually captured of the Korean era.

You could also read the book -- it was written well before Vietnam and while it's maybe not as anti-war as the movie I don't recall it being exactly supportive of the enterprise.

I was not aware there was a book. I will look further into it.

What kind of left supported Argentinian invasion of Falklands and North Korea invading South?

Tankies, who you’ll notice are now ok with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a few general nuts who have varied opinions.

We're not talking about "supported", just "being ok with". Tatcher defending the Falklands was the butt end of many jokes, and maybe I'm mixing things up with Vietnam, but I thought the lefty consensus on Korea was also "what are we doing here anyway?"

After Truman relieved MacArthur (who among other things was advocating for invading China) his approval rating hit 23%. The lowest recorded by Gallup in their entire history of polling Presidential approval. The forgotten war was not particularly unpopular at the time.

?

Foot supported the Falklands war, Attlee and Truman initiated their respective countries involvment in Korea and the discrepancy with Vietnam can simply be explained by specific differences; chiefly, there the US was propping up an unpopular authoritarian regime rather than a functioning and genuine, if flawed, democracy.

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