site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26941 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.

That may have been more reasonable in Feb 22, it's much less so now.

Did you check the date on when that article was written? That post didn't come from Feb 22.

Linked article is completely irrelevant due to the previous point.

I'm sorry, but a totally evidence free assertion like this isn't going to actually convince me. That article laid out a fairly clear and well explained argument as to what's going on in Ukraine, one that deserves more than "it is irrelevant because I think it is wrong". I've seen multiple news stories talking about ammunition and military supply-chain issues on the west, and the same claim you're making (Russia is going to run out of ammo/have serious supply difficulties) has been made repeatedly over the course of the entire conflict and has been wrong every single time a definitive date was given.

I'm entirely amenable to changing my mind - if you can summon up some good statistics showing that Western supply chains are capable of providing ammunition and materiel to Ukraine at a rate that can exceed what Russia and their allies are putting out I will absolutely change my mind (though with the obvious proviso that the statistics are good and the argument sound). From where I'm standing now, it really does seem like Russia has a better manufacturing supply chain for the kind of munitions that are being used in this conflict.

Did you check the date on when that article was written? That post didn't come from Feb 22.

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about your assertion that Russia will win. That was expected when the invasion began because Western analysts didn't have a clear way of judging Russian military capability. Playing it cautiously, they overestimated the Russians.

That article laid out a fairly clear and well explained argument as to what's going on in Ukraine, one that deserves more than "it is irrelevant because I think it is wrong".

When the article is more interested in being going "ackshually, morality doesn't determine victory!" and talking about how this is a "NATO" war and about NATO involvement in the Maidan revolution, it should be treated with far less credibility.

Regardless, I refer you to Perun, who is an member of the Australian defense industry and has been covering the various issues regarding this war and military production and logistics for a while. The linked video goes over this exact topic. He doesn't give any kind of specific date, he only notes that Russia is currently and for the near-future not in a position to simply build its way through this war. He even explicitly argues that Western military production can support Ukraine and help them win, but it's a question of political will, not industrial capacity.

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