site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29600 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.

Concerning but I still tend to think they will try and fit in the system.

Why?

What possible motivation could the Chinese have to support the Pax Americana? They have been talking loudly for decades about the need to shift to a multipolar world and the replacement of the current system. They are explicitly allied with Russia in order to destroy the current system, and they have been working on projects to take the place of the current system for decades.

They are human. It’s in their own best interests. Pax Americana made them rich.

Pax Americana used to be good for them but no longer is, because Chimerica is over. The Chinese are not willing to stop being a superpower that flexes its military muscle at the very least in its claimed turf, and the US is not willing to suffer any unaligned superpowers with turfs to exist; nor allow them to catch up technologically even if they pinky-promise to behave. We'll most likely have a big war within 10 years or so, unless they collapse like the USSR.

China isn’t going to collapse. It’s possible they stagnate like Japan. I could agree with you on mistake theory grounds and China is making a policy mistake but the rules based international system led by America is still very beneficial to them.

I can also agree some of the culture package coming out of America isn’t ideal today. But countries in the system grow more and get richer.

Russia decided to suicide themselves. But rationalist would not do that.

Then you're free to conclude China isn't rational when they invade Taiwan.

...Don't you believe that China is likely to invade Taiwan?

Indeed I do.

Have you listened to any political statements made by the Chinese government recently?

Pax Americana didn't make the Chinese rich, the US government corruptly selling the manufacturing base of the entire west to China made them rich. China is currently actively implementing alternatives to the USD for trade and actively forging alliances with countries violently opposed to the Pax Americana. They took what they needed from the Pax Americana and they're now just delaying their final exit in order to minimise the costs associated with that transition.

I don’t see any evidence we are living in a zero sum world. The only thing negative about western is the pride crap we export but you can just ban some movies for that.

The only thing negative about western is the pride crap we export but you can just ban some movies for that.

Have you heard of Taiwan? I don't think the Chinese government would agree with you on this front, and their opinion actually matters quite a bit when it comes to this topic!

Yes obviously I have, explain to me why an independent Taiwan is bad for them? A city-state of ethnic Han Chinese that pumps out of a ton of advanced tech and invest heavily in mainland China.

The real world politics is not a game of civilization played from the perspective of godlike figure navigating the nation toward ultimate victory.

China is ruled by a regime for which Taiwan presents a constant threat on all sides. It is exactly because Taiwan is Han Chinese and successful, it provides a clear and visible alternative for all the subjects of CCP regime to ponder. Conquering Taiwan would be conclusion of revolution, a "dream" that even Mao could not achieve.

Taiwan has symbolical value beyond any realpoliticking about chips or even strategical issues of control of South China sea. One China policy is the cornerstone of Chinese foreign policy for a reason, any success on this front is question of legitimacy of any CCP leader.

In his speech on Monday laying out his priorities for China, Xi described the need for “national reunification” as the “essence of national rejuvenation”, casting the issue of Taiwan’s relationship with China as a focus of the new political term.

“We should actively oppose the external forces and secessionist activities of Taiwan independence. We should unswervingly advance the cause of national rejuvenation and reunification,” Xi said, to loud applause. Xi, who has previously not ruled out the use of force against Taiwan, stressed the need to “promote peaceful development of cross-strait relations”.

The Chinese Communist party has never governed Taiwan, a self-ruled democracy, but regards it as a renegade province that it must “reunify” with the mainland, by force if necessary. Xi has increasingly prioritised China’s claim to Taiwan, casting it as a historical imperative amid spiralling tensions with the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/xi-jinping-taiwan-independence-china-parliament-national-peoples-congress

Why don't you ask them? China's national leader said that resolving the Taiwan issue is the focus of his new term in office! The Chinese government very obviously views this as a problem, and they have quite a large say in the actions taken by the Chinese government.

I’ll admit to not believing Xi is smart. He’s made a lot of mistakes. It’s also not “All of the government”. He’s wrong. But I’m not sure he’s dumb enough to ruin the international system his government extremely benefits from.

China took advantage of the Pax Americana and the feckless venality of Western leadership to purchase the West's manufacturing base and actual productive economy. Previously, they were reliant on that international system in order to grow, but they have now reached the point where the Pax Americana restrains them more than it helps. You may as well ask why the USA wanted to get out of the Pax Britannica when it was an international system that allowed them to develop into a major power.

More comments

Pax Americana has worked out really well for China so far. Maybe they like getting richer and richer in the current system.

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