site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27522 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you think this is the first time in military history that there was collateral damage? Do you think that conquered people always resist?

Also do you think it is good strategy to basically encourage human shields (provided side A arranges it so that if Party B attacks A, then B will cause collateral damage and be prevented from the collateral damage)? It seems like a really bad idea.

Do you think this is the first time in military history that there was collateral damage?

No, but nor do I think collateral damage is always permissible.

Do you think that conquered people always resist?

What does Palestinians "not resist[ing]" even look like in this context? They are penned in Gaza with nowhere to go. Regularly assailed by air from Israel with little ability to resist or retaliate. How much resistance could they cease doing?

Also do you think it is good strategy to basically encourage human shields (provided side A arranges it so that if Party B attacks A, then B will cause collateral damage and be prevented from the collateral damage)? It seems like a really bad idea.

What has been the actual effect of Israel's killing of human shields on Hamas' willingness to use human shields? Has it actually decreased? Has killing human shields been an effective deterrent in preventing Hamas' use of them? Or has it just killed a thousands of innocent people?

It’s been highly effective in getting people like Biden calling for a cease fire that heavily benefits Hamas.

Resisting is talking about after the war; not during.

They have built 300 miles of tunnels under Gaza for this exact war. Not resisting may have been not preparing for war.

Plus they have had random rocket launches for a long time. Which might be more of a threat to Israel since the Iron dome as a solution is expensive. They can’t trade unlimited missiles without going bankrupt against Gaza.

The next wave of voters are anti-Israel. And there may be limits on this so for geopolitical games I don’t think Israel can count on that.

While using civilians as human shields is certainly morally dubious, continuing to use them after your opponent calls your bluff and it makes no further difference is even worse.

So my sympathies for Hamas, negative as they were, can only go one way.

While using civilians as human shields is certainly morally dubious

Can you provide a falsifiable definition of what a "human shield" is? I've never seen one. What is the objective scientific difference between a legitimate tragic human shield and an aggressor killing a civilian without mercy ostensibly to get at a "valid" target, and just invoking the phrase "human shield" to abrogate moral consequences for their actions? How many people or what methods are used when one shifts from the other?

If a bomb is dropped and kills 10 people to get at one that operated much of his guerilla field planning from home is that human shields? 100? 2? If a cop shoots through a hostage to kill a fugitive killer is that a human shields (blameless and free from personal responsibility for their actions)? What if it's a drugee and not a killer?

It's all about intent and capabilities. When a guerilla force has an entire city to operate in, yet insists on placing weapon caches inside a hospital, that's certainly one. Or someone holding a gun to a hostage's head.

I really don't see anything particularly difficult about it. Is the enemy relying on your unwillingness to kill neutral third parties (or even their civilian supporters) to deter you from offing them? That's a human shield, not that cases like having the Pentagon in DC, because nobody does that to stop them getting literally nuked.

I am not sympathetic to Hamas. I do not think Hamas deserves any sympathy. I do think the innocent Palestinians who Hamas is using as human shields deserve sympathy.

I am not sympathetic to Hamas.

This contradicts your earlier statement that, under similar circumstances, you would take similar actions.

if Israel killed my whole family, who have nothing to do with Hamas, in pursuit of killing some Hamas member my first response would be to start Hamas 2

I take this to mean that you find it understandable and morally acceptable to engage in the actions Hamas has engaged in, as revenge for unjust acts that have affected them.

Fair enough, I have a little sympathy for Hamas. But I recognize that they are evil in both their actions against Israelis and Palestinians alike and want to see them defeated.

I actually find that the Israeli government has done many things that I'd consider to be evil as well - using Palestinians as human shields (as in literally tying children to military vehicles), deploying white phosphorous in civilian areas, sexual abuse of Palestinian women... That said I'm not a particularly big fan of Hamas, so I want to see both of them defeated.

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