site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29601 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

In this case I think misinformation is appropriately used though it’s tough. Because I don’t see any offer of a peace deal. If there was evidence that you could do a ceasefire at todays lines then it would not be misinformation. Sure the war is at a stalemate but where is the evidence that if Ukraine quit fighting Russia would agree to quit fighting (along with a Korea style border). None.

If you said allow Russia the whole of Ukraine and take peace that would be accurate information and an honest opinion.

The one thing I’ve been thinking about is Europe should be footing nearly the full bill for this war. It really isn’t Americas job to protect Europe at least as the first line of defense. Germany and France should be paying full freight.

Maybe America should have thought of that before building NATO, an alliance that explicitly commits the United States to protect European nations.

I think it's a bit easy to say there's no evidence negotiation would work when it's not really been attempted at all.

Maybe Putin just thinks he can outlast Ukrainian manpower and wouldn't bite now but it's hard to say when the best offer he's been given is to give back everything Crimea included.

Nobody has been seriously talking about peace since Minsk and as the Germans blabbered even that wasn't really serious.

Has Putin made an offer? Your giving no agency to him.

The defending side literally doesn’t have agency to end the war. Only the invader can offer peace.

There were reports of peace talks that were close shortly after hostilities began but it was reported that Boris Johnson quashed it.

Also defending side clearly has agency. They can sue for peace but it may not be on terms they like.

In the early stages of the war, Putin wasn't interested in negotiating with Ukraine - he said that Ukraine was a NATO puppet and that he wanted to negotiate with the organ grinder rather than the monkey.

Putin's eve-of-war demands were not even within Ukraine's control to give - they were a commitment from NATO never to admit Ukraine, and a withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe.

I don't disagree with you there. Though we're not privy to all details of course.

I believe he floated a DMZ solution before the counteroffensive, but that's certainly too vague to count.

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