site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26076 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

Also worth mentioning is a political zeitgeist in which the EU has often historically protested American foreign policies (...) but also expected Team America, World Police to show up when war came to their doorstep.

I'm going to push back on this a little. You are right that there is definitely an attitude among some Europeans that the yanks are a bit too keen on war (though plenty of Americans feel the same), but when the rubber hits the road the Europeans have broadly been willing to muck in. Yes Iraq was an exception - though the Brits were there with you - but as you mentioned the 'Iraq war bad' position has broadly been vindicated. Afghanistan, which was only marginally more justified, got buy in from the Europeans. The Libyan intervention was, if anything, French led. I'm not aware of any major dramas surrounding US troops in Europe, most nations are just happy to have them there. As for Israel, European leaders have generally been very supportive in their rhetoric - often to the detriment of their own internal unity with their Muslim populations. You might argue that only America really offers proper material support to Israel, but this is done for very American reasons (Jewish lobby).

You are right that there is definitely an attitude among some Europeans that the yanks are a bit too keen on war (though plenty of Americans feel the same), but when the rubber hits the road the Europeans have broadly been willing to muck in.

I suppose I hadn't considered the general possibility that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks in Europe might be different than the "increase support for Ukraine" crowd. There's a bit of a generalized fallacy in assuming all of the voices we hear from afar are unified, when it's quite possible that different subsets are making different points.

The Libyan intervention was, if anything, French led.

In 2011, yes, although they notably had to drag the Americans in, with rumors that European forces were running short of munitions, which seems quite relevant to the bigger picture. Libya has come up a few times before: in 1986 the US bombed Libya in retaliation for an attack on a Berlin discotheque, but was denied air transit over continental Europe (instead having to fly around Gibraltar), and afterward received some tacit condemnation from West Germany and France (notably France also struck Libyan targets in the '80s several times for its own reasons). I don't disagree with your characterization, either: the world is a surprisingly complicated place.

I suppose I hadn't considered the general possibility that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks in Europe might be different than the "increase support for Ukraine" crowd.

They absolutely, positively are two entirely separate crowds, in a way that I would have considered obvious and self-evident to anyone.

I would go further and say that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks and the Greenwald/Chomsky style pro-Russia tankies are the same people, just like they are in the US.

I'm under the impression that there are relatively few people who are truly sympathetic to NATO and the US presence in Europe, relatively more who are against it out of some lingering cold-war era pacifist or anti-American sentiments, and a large majority that doesn't care either way.

NATO commands a wide majority of support in almost all of the member states, and a majority of support in all of them.

In the UK, support for NATO is one of the litmus test issues used to distinguish between the left and the far left. Jeremy Corbyn personally opposes UK membership of NATO, but he didn't try to make pulling out Labour party policy while he was leader because he knew it would have blown up the Labour party.

My understanding is that this is the same in every European country except France (where the Gaullist right saw NATO membership as subservience to the US) and, historically, Spain (because a lot of the Spanish centre-left blamed NATO for propping up Franco).

I think it depends a lot on what you consider the boundary of 'truly sympathetic'. If by that you mean 'full-throated advocacy' then yes what you're saying is probably about right. But most of those who "don't care either way" would come down on the side of NATO and the US if you asked them.*

I also think this is one of those issues where the opinion of the general population deviates substantially from that of the loud and terminally online.

*If I were to bet on one country bucking that trend it would be France. They are quite haughty and resent having to rely on anyone, especially The Anglos, for anything.

That may well be true. I'd say it depends on the phrasing of the question, but to be fair that's all guesswork on my part.

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