site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26213 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

And considering the conflicts the US rampages across the world starting, it too, has little problem throwing away it's citizens for false ideals, against people who've never done a thing against them. At least Russia has the good sense to throw their people away defending their own borders.

The difference between what I know of how USA treats their soldiers and how Russia treats theirs is big enough that I wouldn't use the words "throw away" for both of them. This is without even going into the fact that Russia conscripts men against their will. US military recruiters might target the dumb and the hopeless, they might lie and embellish, but it's a choice.

Could justify it if "defending" meant "defending" as it did during WWII, but this? Hardly different from USA's "national interests securing" and "projecting influence". The only major difference is that USA's got oceans on both sides and Russia's only got one.

Conscription is by definition against a person's will. The only reason why there's any pretense otherwise in the US is because we've barely been able to get by staffing the military on a purely voluntary basis. If we couldn't, there would be conscription.

Could justify it if "defending" meant "defending" as it did during WWII, but this? Hardly different from USA's "national interests securing" and "projecting influence". The only major difference is that USA's got oceans on both sides and Russia's only got one.

I really don't want to seem like I'm insulting you here because I'm honestly not trying to, but are you really this dense? Even the foremost western scholars on the matter like Richard Sakwa fault the west for Russia taking drastic measures in securing its own national security interests.

If we couldn't, there would be conscription.

but there is not, so there is substantial difference between USA and Russia here (and elsewhere)

fault the west for Russia taking drastic measures in securing its own national security interests.

Russia being imperialist and neighbours preferring to not be in Russia is not West fault.

In the same way if France would get silly, started desiring empire again and invaded Spain it would not automatically be Russia's fault.

Russia is not entitled to empire.

Russia is not entitled to empire.

Empires are not given by some kind Santa Claus because you are good guy who is "entitled" to them. Empires are taken if you have strength to do so.

And, as we saw during the latest events, Russian strength is not as it was advertised. World's second super power just ain't so.

but there is not, so there is substantial difference between USA and Russia here (and elsewhere)

Incidentally yes. In principle, no.

Russia being imperialist and neighbours preferring to not be in Russia is not West fault.

No different than the Monroe Doctrine in the US. You want people to stay out of your backyard, stay out of others backyards.

You want people to stay out of your backyard, stay out of others backyards.

well, Russia should not have meddled in Ukraine's backyard then.

well, Russia should not have meddled in Ukraine's backyard then.

Quit having your dog come through our hole in the fence.

Well, very large part of my lack of enthusiasm toward Russia is that Russia considers Poland as being within their rightful fence.

For me whole point of NATO is to have strong guard dog keeping Russian bear away. Yes, away from they consider their area to grab.

Maybe if they would not do stuff like role playing invasion of Poland and dropping nuclear weapon on Warsaw as part of their military exercises I would be liking Russian government more and would be more supportive for it.

Well, very large part of my lack of enthusiasm toward Russia is that Russia considers Poland as being within their rightful fence.

Yeah, I hear this too. And what's the reliable source for anticipating the inevitable Putin invasion of Europe that I'm always told about?

For me whole point of NATO is to have strong guard dog keeping Russian bear away. Yes, away from they consider their area to grab.

Ah yes. "NATO is justified to manage the security threats provoked by its own existence."

Maybe if they would not do stuff like role playing invasion of Poland and dropping nuclear weapon on Warsaw as part of their military exercises I would be liking Russian government more and would be more supportive for it.

Wait until you hear about the invasion plans the US has cooked up on the backend for its own neighbors. It's a pity we didn't have such hawkish stooges in the Kennedy administration, encouraging him to dig his heels in all the more against Khrushchev. After all, he might not have invaded Puerto Rico.

More comments

The only reason why there's any pretense otherwise in the US is because we've barely been able to get by staffing the military on a purely voluntary basis. If we couldn't, there would be conscription.

And why does the US go at length to keep its military purely voluntary? If conscription is cheaper, then the answer can't be just "because it can", it could free up resources by grabbing more near-free manpower.

I really don't want to seem like I'm insulting you here because I'm honestly not trying to, but are you really this dense? Even the foremost western scholars on the matter like Richard Sakwa fault the west for Russia taking drastic measures in securing its own national security interests.

As a matter of fact, I haven't read all those books by "the foremost Western scholars", no, so if that's what it takes to be dense today, I'll cop to that. I have, however, heard of a significant bias Western scholars have when it comes to determining the agency of the west in world matters. It is always either the west's mission or the west's fault. I happen to think, based on data I didn't need a hundred politological books to learn, that there ain't anything the West did that "forced Russia's hand". Russia has enough agency to have culpability in this bloodshed it covers up with figleafs of "denazification" and "restoration of historical lands", and it does have culpability as much as one can ascribe common morality to machinations of state powers. All the scholars in the world are unlikely to convince me that TPTB can't go fuck themselves.

Russia could do better than that, too. It managed with Crimea.

And why does the US go at length to keep its military purely voluntary? If conscription is cheaper, then the answer can't be just "because it can", it could free up resources by grabbing more near-free manpower.

You must be having an argument with someone else, because I have no idea what half your points have to do with anything I'm saying.

I happen to think, based on data I didn't need a hundred politological books to learn, that there ain't anything the West did that "forced Russia's hand".

Yes, in fact they did, and this is elementary knowledge in geopolitical circles. Why do you think the Minsk Accords receive zero attention in the western press? (It's because western audiences that know about it, know that it completely blows up the western narrative on Russia-Ukraine)

it covers up with figleafs of "denazification"...

You mean like the Azov Battalion that explicitly defined itself as Neo-Nazi? That one?

Why do you think the Minsk Accords receive zero attention in the western press?

Because it works poorly as clickbait.

(It's because western audiences that know about it, know that it completely blows up the western narrative on Russia-Ukraine)

I am aware of it and it does not seem to be significant in this matter.

Because it works poorly as clickbait.

Facts that break the counter-narrative usually do.

I am aware of it and it does not seem to be significant in this matter.

Makes sense if you support western foreign policy. I'm fairly anti-war myself.

I'm fairly anti-war myself.

the same for me, and also against Russian invasions (especially in my country)

the same for me, and also against Russian invasions (especially in my country)

Indeed. It's almost as if the Minsk Accords should've been adhered to.

You must be having an argument with someone else, because I have no idea what half your points have to do with anything I'm saying.

What, then, were you saying when you went on about how the US "barely manages to keep its military voluntary"?

Yes, in fact they did, and this is elementary knowledge in geopolitical circles.

From the link...

In reality, the United States and NATO bear much of the responsibility for the Ukraine crisis. Through a series of misguided policies, Washington and its European allies placed Russia in an untenable situation for which war seemed, to Mr. Putin and his military staff, the only workable solution.

Speculation on what was going on in Putin's brain is "knowledge", let alone "elementary"?

You mean like the Azov Battalion that explicitly defined itself as Neo-Nazi? That one?

See, now you're looking like you're insulting me. Yes, I'm aware that the Azov Battallion exists. That does not, in fact, make "denazification" less of a figleaf. Russian state propaganda routinely uses "western nazis" as snarl words to legitimize its actions vs. the West whether the particular people in question wear the swastikas or not. You're doing the equivalent of pointing out that the stopped clock is right at one of the two moments when it does match real time.

You initially brought up the point about conscription. Look at what it was in response to.

Speculation on what was going on in Putin's brain is "knowledge", let alone "elementary"?

Sounds like you never even read the preview.

... Russian state propaganda routinely uses "western nazis" as snarl words to legitimize its actions vs. the West whether the particular people in question wear the swastikas or not. You're doing the equivalent of pointing out that the stopped clock is right at one of the two moments when it does match real time.

Seems pretty hard to call it "state propaganda" then when they're reporting accurately.

Seems pretty hard to call it "state propaganda" then when they're reporting accurately.

Being right in one specific case that does not mean that they are right in general.

And yes, claiming it is all (or even in part) about nazis is a lie by Russia.

Being right in one specific case that does not mean that they are right in general.

Glad to know RT's got more going for it than CNN does.

And yes, claiming it is all (or even in part) about nazis is a lie by Russia.

Not by your own admission.

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