site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27152 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

Are the Israelis scheming to deport Muslim Israeli citizens? While it might be a distant goal in the eyes of some hardcore religious Zionists (no different to the mass deportation of Muslim French being a distant goal of some hardcore French reactionaries, which it is) it certainly isn’t in the regular Overton window.

Who said anything about citizens? If the UK schemed to send all it's Muslim immigrants, who have not yet been granted citizenship yet, to France, that would also qualify as "some grand racial action against France".

If the UK invaded a Muslim territory, and schemed to send all it's inhabitants to France, that would be even worse.

Stay on topic, please.

The condition of Palestinian Arabs is no different to those of German Ostsiedler, who (even in cases where their ancestors had spent 500+ years outside the territory of modern Germany) were resettled to Germany after WW2. This was an accepted Western action with the support of all major surviving Western powers.

Why should Israel be any different? The Arabs lost three wars against Israel (the Germans lost only one against Russia, really), so they have forfeited their land. They can be resettled in one of the many Arab ethnic homelands in the rest of the region, just as the Germans were resettled in Germanic homelands in Central Europe.

So you’re pro the expulsion of Germans from Hinterpommern and Upper Silesia? I think it was a textbook example both of the nationalist spiral and of people absurdly ‘reclaiming’ land they had no legitimate title to from the descendants of people who’d been there since before the region entered history (the Silesians and Pomeranians having finished Germanizing culturally and linguistically only in early modern times, and presumably being at least 30% descended from Slonzoki and Pomorzonie (as in modern Vorpommern).

I came to history with a pro-Czech and pro-Polish bias (despite being neither) - before I knew enough about history to not be exactly pro-anyone. It was the history of hard and soft ethnic cleansing here the gradually turned me against the nationalist approach despite my initial sympathy.

Exactly, and Meir Kahane made this exact parallel in 1984. I find it strage that Israelis are condemed for wanting to get rid of a minority, when a man Americans to this day celebrate (FDR) sanctioned a removal on a much larger scale, of a people whose loyalty was less in question1 than of Arabs from Gaza.

1: Benes et al promoted stories of alleged "Werwolf" cells, but consensus among historians is that the threat was overstated.

… IIRC the U.S. military regretted supporting the population transfer more or less immediately and the officers involved recommended against allowing similar moves in future. If anyone’s still defending this, it’s presumably on the basis of ‘Nazis’ rather than some general principle.

I find it strage that Israelis are condemed for wanting to get rid of a minority

I think the problem is the hypocrisy.

It seems that the people who want Westerners to believe that it's okay for Israelis to get rid of a minority are also the ones who think it's not acceptable for Westerners to get rid of a minority (Jews for example).

The condition of Palestinian Arabs is no different to those of German Ostsiedler

Sending ethnic Germans living in eastern Europe to Germany is no different than sending Palestinians to Germany?

Why should Israel be any different?

Indeed, let's send all the Palestinians to Tel Aviv then.

They can be resettled in one of the many Arab ethnic homelands in the rest of the region,

Since when is Europe "the rest of the region"?

Sending ethnic Germans living in eastern Europe to Germany is no different than sending Palestinians to Germany?

Sending a Palestinian to Jordan or Syria or the Sinai is no different to sending an arbitrary German Ostsiedler to Düsseldorf after several centuries of living in the East, sure. Population movement in the Ottoman and earlier Levant was commonplace.

And yeah, the analogy is more true than you suggest. Many of the peoples the Eastern European Germans lived around had been there for little longer than they had, or had themselves been otherwise migratory in the past.

Since when is Europe "the rest of the region"?

Israel’s first preference has always been to send the Palestinians to another Arab nation.

That they troll European leftists by suggesting they take them doesn’t change this.

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