site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29676 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.

WTF are the Ukrainians fighting for? To speak a very slightly different language and pay in funny money rather than funny money? This whole thing is like the Canadians (the actual ones) resisting the Americans...why?

  • -16

Because Ukraine wants to prop up its economy at the expense of German taxpayers, not prop up the Moscow economy at its expense.

To be Poland versus being Belarus.

To be Poland is part of the plan. Putin has said there's no objection to Galicia & Volyn returning to Poland.

Poland is on current trajectory expected to be richer than the UK by 2030. Sort of something a lot of Ukraine would like to be.

If he had the chance he’d take it all. Obviously he’d be willing to concede on Galicia but I don’t think there’s a hard brake on his territorial ambitions at a specific point, he does appear to be an ideological imperialist at least to some extent.

Would he also concede on Transcarpathia returning to Hungary and Bukovina back to Romania?

I read it as Putin would like to take Galicia and subjugate the Ukrainian Greek Catholics like Chechen Muslims, but he’s not willing to fight for it in any way.

Because it's far more appealing to join the western sphere of influence than to remain in Russia's. NATO and the EU offer Ukraine a powerful security guarantee, prosperity and liberty.

A very specific sort of globohomo prosperity and liberty.

I'll bite - in what sense exactly can Russia can considered to be more prosperous than the United States? Please, something more specific and measurable than 'globohomo'.

Paid vacation time and holidays also maternity leave.

Fair enough, though the EU minimum for maternity leave is higher than Russia's.

Asking for US examples and then pointing to the EU is moving the goalpost.

The US is stupidly rich by any metric. Ukraine would gladly accept being US rich.

What does Russia have to offer in return? Dominance by Moscow?

Say what you will about globohomo, you're probably gonna have a fatter wallet by joining it over not.

As opposed to dominance by DC / EU? Isn't that what the money is for, to distract from the globohomo?

Would you prefer to be dominated by Russia or DC?

They're fighting to not be genocided

Why would the Americans resist the Canadians if the situation was reversed?

Many wouldn't, and this number is only going to continue going down the more self-hating colonizer ideology sweeps the nation.

As the world witnesses what is happening to Ukraine, Americans were asked what they would do if they were in the same position as Ukrainians are now: stay and fight or leave the country? A majority (55 percent) say they would stay and fight, while 38 percent say they would leave the country. Republicans say 68 - 25 percent and independents say 57 - 36 percent they would stay and fight, while Democrats say 52 - 40 percent they would leave the country.

...what?

You seem to present an argument that Ukrainians do not have a good reason to fight, because at the end of the day the culture/governance of Russia is not meaningfully different from their current existence. Ignoring for the moment the accuracy of that, you compare this to Canadians resisting Americans, this seems to imply you think such a Canadian resistance is similarly wanting for a reason, because at the end of the day the culture/governance of America would not be meaningfully different. Of course, if this is true, then in theory if the role was reversed, and Canada was to attack America, since the same conditions must necessarily be reciprocal with regards to culture/governance, it would seem America would also lack a good reason to fight.

That is, your argument, as best as I can tell, seems fully reversable for any two nations to which it was applicable. Russians would be similarly foolish for fighting against Ukrainian rule, etc.

What? I thought it was a simple question. If Canada decided it wanted the state Maine or Michigan for itself, would you be asking "WTF are Americans fighting for?"?

The problem is with the current Canadian regime it’s basically wtf would be different? Maine might actually do better as Canadian it would probably become more developed since Americans like to move to warm weather and Canadians can’t. Politically the US/Canada are very similar. The only big difference is Canada is more socialists largely because they don’t have large non-European low IQ populations.

Michigan could take Canada 10/10

If you want to burn down the District of Criminals, do it yourselves this time. No need to involve the Canadians. Plus an all-American DC fire would probably have better music.

That's not what I'm asking about.

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