site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27150 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.

Says the American press after trying to pin it on Russia. And in a context of divided Ukrainian leadership.

I'm personally convinced it was the Brits, but who it exactly was that pressed the button matters little given they were most likely acting under American orders or with assent from them.

It benefits them tremendously, they have the capability and they specifically threatened to do it before the fact. You need a lot less to convict someone.

they specifically threatened to do it before the fact.

This is flatly incorrect. The US threatened to "shut it down" if Russia invaded, which was in reference to a secret agreement with Germany that the US would end sanctions on the pipeline if they promised to end it if an invasion happened. That agreement got invoked. The pipeline got bombed afterwards.

You're quoting Biden wrong. Here's what he said:

If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2, We will put an end to it.

Now sure, a good defense attorney would argue this refered only to peaceful sanctions, my client meant that he would economically ruin the man, not shoot him dead. But then the prosecution would follow with the countless previous times where the US didn't get their way and used force and covert operations to make their promises happen, including on allies, including acts of war.

Maybe Biden did mean it in the purely economic sense. But it's still conspicuous.

And if you add this to the fact it tremendously helps the US economically that this pipeline no longer exists and Russia and Germany are economically severed, and the fact they are currently in a proxy war with Russia, the circumstances don't look good for the defense.

But then the prosecution would follow with the countless previous times where the US didn't get their way

The US DID get it's way, since Germany shut down the pipeline.

tremendously helps the US economically

Natural gas is a tiny fraction of the US economy, and still nearly half of all exports are going to Mexico/Canada. US gas is unlikely to be better than a temporary stop-gap since the mechanics of LNG mean it will lose economically in the medium and long term to simple piped gas.

I'm personally convinced it was the Brits

Can you expand on this? I haven’t heard this theory before and I don’t see what we’d have to gain. Unless purely sucking up to the US? Even we aren’t that self-sabotaging, although I can’t say that as strongly as I once might have.

Personally I would give 80% odds it’s some combo of Ukrainian and American op, on the basis of opportunity plus cui bono.

It's funny you haven't heard of the Brit theory because it's the one claimed by the Russians: that the same navy advisors helping the ukies in the black sea did it.

There's some circumstantial evidence that Lizz Truss sent confirmation to Blinken right after the event.

I'll readily admit this is mostly a hunch because the evidence of any party being the actual operator of the sabotage is scant. It's all hearsay even for the Ukrainian theory. We know the Brits have been doing a lot of other US dirty work-related to this war, so it fits into a larger picture.

It’s a very common Russian conspiracy theory that Britain is secretly pulling the strings behind the American empire and controls US foreign policy.

Understandable given the British role in Russian history I suppose.

I guess they may very well be playing off that, but Britain has also a pretty consistent track record of being America's enforcer in Europe. I'd be very surprised if they weren't involved to some degree.

It’s a very common Russian conspiracy theory that Britain is secretly pulling the strings behind the American empire and controls US foreign policy.

Dear God, I wish. I won’t deny we’ve played spoiler on occasion (AUKUS). But as far as I can see British Government long ago gave up on any strategy except ‘suck up to (and cower behind) big bro’ and the rewards have been negligible.

I will never forgive or forget Obama making it clear that if we left the EU he would make sure we didn’t get any trade deals with the US. I cannot imagine a world where the UK did something the US didn’t like and it supported us because we’re allies. Or for that matter the US allowing any other western power to attain a non-client status or to pursue a genuinely independent foreign policy.

I believe Obama said that the UK would go to the 'back of the queue' for any trade deals, not taking a trade deal off of the table, but making it clear that the promises of some Brexiteers that the UK could just seamlessly move from the EU into a free trade agreement with the US were unrealistic.

Eh, it depends on context I guess. The remark was made as an explicit intervention by an ally during a time of high political tension. The Remain side was relying very heavily on hyped-up visions of doom that would occur if we left the EU and Obama's remark was a clear signal that the US would not support us. Given that we had been loyal allies who fought and bled for them in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we had a right to expect more. And indeed people were furious, I think he produced a 1 or 2 point swing towards Leave by himself.

If he had said, 'If Britain leaves the EU, then as your allies we will do our very best to support you in the interim but producing a trade deal is complicated and will take some time', then that would have been different. Still a little cool, but an understandable equivocation.

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