site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30281 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When Putin defeated Chechnya, what happened to the Chechens? Were they ethnically displaced? No. Well, were they culturally Russified? Not really. But surely they lost the ability to adjudicate their own matters in their own republic? Nope, they enforce an Islamic dress code and still kill gays…

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia. There’s no evidence for it. There’s plenty evidence of the exact opposite.

Chechens are a Muslim hill tribe with a culture and language alien to that of Orthodox Russians, not fellow East Slavs and members of the triune All-Russian nation. There is no room in that conception for a Ukrainian nation whose destiny is different from that of Russia and there never has been. If Putin got his wish they could keep their folk songs (except the ones about fighting Russians, perhaps) and quaint clothing and go on speaking their peasant dialect regional language at home if they so desired, but that would be the extent of their autonomy.

Note that the “destiny” of a people who declare sovereignty has never been important for Ukraine or her oligarchs, as they waged war against the ethnically and linguistically Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukrainian when they declared themselves sovereign (after a Western-influenced unconstitutional coup). This despite it having widespread support from the people, as shown by third party polling. Before and after Ukraine literally shelled a region with cluster munitions for declaring sovereignty, they waged cultural genocide against indigenous Russian speakers by making it illegal for shopkeepers to speak Russian or for newspapers to be published in Russian without publishing in Ukrainian first.

Note that the “destiny” of a people who declare sovereignty has never been important for Ukraine or her oligarchs, as they waged war against the ethnically and linguistically Russian inhabitants of eastern Ukrainian when they declared themselves sovereign

Some time ago I read a book about the early days of 2014 war by a Russian militant which made it quite clear, to me, that this narrative (or that Ukraine literally shelled a region with cluster munitions for declaring sovereignty") is bunkum.

What happened was that, in the post-Crimea high, a small group of Russian radical imperialist nationalists conducted a filibuster operation that, due to the general weakness of the post-Kuchma/Yanukovich Ukrainian state and army, managed to turn a heretofore-fairly-weak anti-Maidan operation that had aimed for federalization into a secessionist enterprise, this reaction then being furthered by the ongoing warfare. What is unclear is how much support from official Russia they had, but at least some sectors of the regime seem to have offered them backing.

This despite it having widespread support from the people, as shown by third party polling.

While there probably was real support for secession in Crimea, I don't think that applies to Donetsk. Of course situation might have been different in the pre-2022 years in the then-Russian-controlled area due to people moving to/from the area for ideological reasons, but I'm not aware of any polls in the Donetsk/Luhansk areas giving any credence to widespread separatist support, apart from the obviously farcical status referendums of 2014 and 2022.

they waged cultural genocide against indigenous Russian speakers by making it illegal for shopkeepers to speak Russian or for newspapers to be published in Russian without publishing in Ukrainian first.

Considering how widely Russian is still spoken in Ukraine, and particularly before 2022, this is not a particularly efficient genocide. Ukraine does privilege Ukrainian to Russian, currently, but that's not genocide, cultural or otherwise.

(Also, below, you state "Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate from the history of Russians, though. That’s why it is nearly identical to Russian culture, religion, and language" - well, if that would be the case, why would Russians consider it such an onerous requirement to speak Ukrainian, identify with Ukrainian culture, join the OCU instead of UOC (MP) etc?)

Which do you think would be easier, incidentally - being an Ukrainian-only speaking in the areas of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia, or being a Russian-only speaker in Ukraine?

imperialist nationalists

What? That's like being libertarian socialists.

The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology polled Donbas residents in 2014. The findings are tilted pro-Kyiv in two ways: it’s literally the results from an institution in Kyiv shortly after a coup, but more importantly Kyiv was mentioned whenever the polling was done — those who are wary of Kyiv or anti-Kyiv are obviously going to be less likely to answer an institute from Kyiv. If you look at page 35 Figure 1, 31% want either succession or joining with Russia, an additional 23% wanted to be made an autonomous republic within Ukraine, and 35% want to remain in Ukraine without autonomy. Of that last 35%, only 9% wanted the status quo, whereas 26% wanted expanded powers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2454203

If the results are this pro-autonomy despite the bias in favor of Kyiv, it’s reasonable to assume that the actual figures are more pro-autonomy. Sadly, there’s no way to get that figure.

cluster munitions

NYT say they have, as do HRW. You think it’s bunk because of an obscure book written by an obscure Russian, probably from an obscure passage you haven’t linked.

Yes, that poll shows a clear majority for staying within Ukraine (with autonomy or expanded powers, or without), which is completely different from separation and/or joining Russia.

NYT say they have, as do HRW. You think it’s bunk because of an obscure book written by an obscure Russian, probably from an obscure passage you haven’t linked.

To make it clear, I wasn't talking about cluster munitions, but about the idea that Ukraine just attacked innocent Donbass people for "wanting sovereignty", a term that means very little in itself. Ukraine defended itself by force of arms against armed filibusterers and (later) local separatists who wanted to violently enact separation and annexation to Russia (declared to be the aim by DPR/LPR from the start), ie. something that had just repeated in Crimea previously. Any other country would have done the same, according to capabilities.

If you want to read the book ("obscure", sure, but would one expect a pro-separatist Russian manifesto to be a NYT bestseller in any case?), it's here.

The poll is an extreme upper ceiling on support for remaining in Ukraine, which is sufficient to prove to even the most skeptical of skeptics that there is huge public support for independence / annexation among Donbas residents. Reminder by the way that Euromaidan was an armed, illegal ousting of a constitutionally-elected president.

That argument is, to put it mildly, a huge reach. Unless there's clear evidence to assume otherwise, one can't just take a poll and then assume that it must represent the "extreme upper ceiling".

Chechnya

note that Chechens fought wars with Russia and won the first one. If they would just surrender they would be unlikely to get so extensive autonomy.

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia.

Putin personally wrote how Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate thing from Russian one (and how in general Ukraine does not exist as a separate thing)

Ukrainian culture does not exist as separate from the history of Russians, though. That’s why it is nearly identical to Russian culture, religion, and language.

Ukraine does have a lot of different culture and memes, far more libertarian while Russia has been authoritarian. Kamil did a few threads on how they have different poets/writers.

So you are claiming that "It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine, or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia" because existence of Russian culture and language is dubious and there is nothing to damage?

I guess his point is more that if average Ukraine supporter from West hears a Slav shouting "Putin, go fuck yourself" they would not be able to tell if it's shouted in Russian or Ukrainian. When Afghans fought against Soviets, they thought (more or less correctly) that Soviets are going to make women wear miniskirts, ban Islam, make population eat pork and drink alcohol. If Russians captures Ukraine, are they going to replace Ukrainian Borscht with Russian Borscht? What's the difference?

If Third Reich occupies you country and makes you switch to German language, then your accent reveals non-German origin. But for Russians, Ukrainian accents are indistinguishable from accent spoken by Russians in Voronezh or Krasnodar.

Zelensky-produced TV series "Svaty" ("The in-laws") is purposefully staged to do not show if it setting is Russia or Ukraine. A easy thing to do, I occasionally found this reading Wikipedia.

for Russians, Ukrainian accents are indistinguishable from accent spoken by Russians in Voronezh or Krasnodar.

Somehow I doubt said accent is going to be called "Krasnodarsky" and not "Khokhlyatsky".

Shokan'ye and the soft "g" are quirks consistently associated with Ukraine in my memory.

I guess his point is more that if average Ukraine supporter from West hears a Slav shouting "Putin, go fuck yourself" they would not be able to tell if it's shouted in Russian or Ukrainian.

By that logic China and Japan have a single culture as I am unable to distinguish their languages. And I expect that it true for typical person from USA, Europe or Africa.

I think average person can pick difference between Chinese and Japanese overall sound picture by listening random speeches in each language for a minute

If you can't tell apart Japanese and Chinese that's because you never put any effort into it, they are very distinct. "Putin go fuck yourself" is nearly identical sound-per-sound in Ukrainian and Russian.

"Just bow before the golden statue, you don't have to mean it."

On the first level, it's always rational to give in to threats of force when you are uncertain that you can resist, and never more so than when all you have to do is give up some wispy theoretical thing like "sovereignty". Just calculate the probability weighted present value of future benefits and select the decision branch that maximizes it, right?

But game theory is baked into human nature: tit for tat is optimal in some games, but we go even further to ensure deterrence. Break into my house and I'll shoot you; invade some Roman lands and they'll destroy Carthage; blow up a battleship in harbor and America will bend every resource to your complete submission or annihilation.

In repeated games, vengeance is rational, and resistance in the face of impossible odds is logical.

It’s western propaganda that Russia wouldn’t negotiate with Ukraine,

The Western position has never been that Russia wouldn't negotiated with Ukraine. The Western propaganda has been that the Russian negotiating position with Ukraine has never been sincere or particularly serious, given that even pre-war Russian positions amounted to a capitulation of the sovereign ability of Ukraine to run its own foreign policy.

Note that being propaganda does not mean one cannot derive from the truth, which in this case can be compared to various Russia negotiating positions related to Ukraine.

or that Ukrainian culture would be damaged by Russia. There’s no evidence for it. There’s plenty evidence of the exact opposite.

This is, of course, why the Russian pre-war narratives centered around the falseness of Ukrainian identity vis-a-vis their membership as part of the Russian culture, the inadverdently released pre-written victory propaganda celebrated the re-consolidation of the Ukrainian territory into the Russian cultural sphere, the first winter of the war attempted to trigger a mass diaspora and broad depopulation of Ukraine's main remaining population centers via the attempt to target the essential civilian electrical grid, and why occupation-administration's education system is set up to re-educate Ukrainian children into Russians... or at least the youth who weren't kidnapped and scattered across the Russian adoption system without records for future tracking or recovery.

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