site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   3146 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 31, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nobody cares (well, apparently except you) if the Fremen are realistic

Sorry dawg, Brett Devereaux apparently does, and I've seen this particular piece of work crop up both on the Motte, as a definitive rebuttal to the "Weak times, weak men" hypothesis that so many are fond of, and in the wild elsewhere, that I can be confident there's a significant number of people who find the Fremen-wank grating.

And they're far from the worst elements in the novel, credit for being first only goes so far. So sure, I "give credit" to Dune, if you so desire, which doesn't negate my stance that I think it's a mediocre book with questionable worldbuilding, queer plotting, 1D characters, and enough fetish material to make an accurate adaptation to the big screen something you should book your popcorn for well in advance.

Hey, we did have a "Good times, weak men" moment just recently in Afghanistan. It turns out that wealth and industry (at least in our hands) can't beat small arms and religious fervor so intense they were prepared to blow themselves up just to defeat us. Perhaps things would've been different if the PLA had gone in and shown the world what real human rights abuses look like, who knows.

There's some truth in "Good times, weak men". Take Rome. Their tenacity was absolutely legendary until it wasn't. They lost to Hannibal at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and then Cannae - 20% of male citizens dead in under two years. Rome totally rejected the possibility of defeat and fought on to ultimate victory! Later on they're surrendering and paying tribute to the Goths, the Huns, everyone and their dog. There's no Cannae spirit of victory at any costs, a single defeat is enough for them to make concessions.

That's not a particularly convincing statement, one of the benefits of "good times, hard men" is how vaguely it can be interpreted. The Japanese and Germans during WW2 suffered far harder times than the US did, what with their soldiers getting ships full of ice cream while the former were eating their shoes. The Soviets suffered plenty of "hard times", and even they gave up on fighting a mountain insurgency. The Chechens prided themselves on being "hard men" and even they got their cheeks clapped later when the Russians swallowed losses.

It is a largely useless and outright misleading frame to view the world in, even if there are examples of moral "weakness" (or at least a lack of appetite for brutality) causing defeat. And that's not even the definition of weak being used in every context, another benefit of how vague the term is in the English language is that it lets people accidentally or intentionally conflate two very separate things, cowardice and military weakness. The US managed to clap ISIS despite the latter being even more rabid than the Taliban.

The Romans famously gave up on Germania after disastrous losses at Teutoburg and well before anyone could plausibly call them weak/decadent.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the US carried out air strikes against IS but otherwise used local proxies for the actual fighting, yes? Not a great example.

What does it matter? Fighter pilots, if not drone operators, are stereotypical "hard men", and it certainly seems that the countries experiencing "good times" have an abundance of them.

Besides, there were SF sent into the region, who are undeniably so.

The fact that technology and state capacity matters more than how fierce and militaristic your average goon is, should count as another knock against Good Times, Weak Men.

Besides, there were SF sent into the region, who are undeniably so.

As the saying goes, "You can't thicken up a bucket of spit with a handful of buckshot."

The Chechens, Afghans, Goths and so on were supposed to lose. Most of the time, big established powers are supposed to defeat smaller, poorer powers since they have all these resources and advantages. WW2 is one of those scenarios. But sometimes this doesn't happen, we have the man bites dog case where the small powers win. Or in the case of Chechnya, they won the first war, lost the second.

Explaining this kind of rarity is what the model is for, it suggests that when the big powers start losing to the small powers, the big power won't be big for too much longer. The Soviets suffered all kinds of disasters in the 1930s and 1940s and pulled through but by the 1980s the war in Afghanistan was enough to cause them political trouble! Stalin would've laughed at the idea of a mere 15-20K dead soldiers causing problems for the Soviet Union. But the USSR of Andropov and Brezhnev was not what it used to be.

I think there is a useful meaning of 'weak' that is certainly satisfied by Andropov and Chernenko. The former was very sick and died quickly. The latter was described as "an enfeebled geriatric so zombie-like as to be beyond assessing intelligence reports, alarming or not" when he succeeded Andropov in 1984. Or take Biden. Old and muddled. There's a certain kind of political culture that gets you young, energetic leaders, another delivers these old talkers. Scipio Africanus was 28 when he won his first campaign, Napoleon was 27 when he invaded Italy, Alexander won battles in his teens. Vigour, aggression and youth vs bureaucracy, physical weakness, senescence and passivity.

This kind of strength doesn't guarantee success - Belisarius and Aurelian didn't manage to turn things around for Rome. But something must have happened to change Rome from the supremely confident, all-conquering Republican Rome to the desperately embattled 3rd and 4th century Rome. The institutions and culture of the old days disappeared, expansion slowed and stopped. Why did they give up on annexing Germania, they'd never halted expansion before no matter the disaster?

How could ISIS even show up - wasn't the US supposed to be waging a global war on Islamic terror and securing the oily lands? It seems like a pretty serious failure in your military strength if strawman-Islamists from your own feverish propaganda materialize and take half of Iraq, only to be beaten back by Iranian proxies (who now control the territory in question). If the US were truly strong, they should have been able to stomp Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and so on, install new regimes of awed, pliant clients who send back tribute to the Metropole lest they incur Washington's wrath. Iran should be quivering in their boots, grimly defending their homeland, not advancing on all fronts.

I read that link you provided, and I definitely wouldn't say Devereaux cares that the Fremen are unrealistic. He cares that people think it's a realistic premise and is arguing against that, not saying that they are bad because they aren't realistic.

https://acoup.blog/2020/02/21/collections-the-fremen-mirage-interlude-ways-of-the-fremen/

There's an additional interlude which delves further into his opinions on how much Dune it's succumbs to the "Fremen Mirage".

Note that I never claimed that Devereaux considered the Fremen "bad", merely unrealistic, and a propagator of bad tropes into even relatively sophisticated audiences. I'm using his arguments to justify my dislike of them, and my primary rebuttal is to your claim that nobody other than me happens to care about the matter. Like I said, I have seen people bring it up as a criticism of Dune organically, hell I could pull up screenshots of a discussion a few days ago on the ACX discord.

Suffice to say that n>1 people care, and at least I have plenty of reason to find Dune not particularly worthy of its current high regard as a work of classic science fiction.

I mean the counterpoint is that the worldbuilding is something which makes the fremen make sense in context, and otherwise makes you understand in the pages, without needing to be specifically told, that there's 20,000 years of history betwixt here and there, without glaring contradictions.

The Fremen don't make sense even in context. That is the objection that both I and Devereaux happen to have. The blog has shed enough ink on the topic that I don't feel the need to recapitulate any of it again.

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