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.

You asked "And how many times has Russia been invaded in the last century, approximately?"

Yes I did. And "approximately" was the key word in that sentence.

For start, we were talking about military invasions, right?

Seems to me like they win the persecution gig no matter which way you look at it.

They were allied enough to hold joint victory parade and cooperate invading together and sign official documents (secret part of Ribbentrop-Molotov).

Does that change what I said at all?

how it is contrary to NATO's official mandate? NATO is a collective security system and main threat to its members is Russia.

Which is quite funny, because every subsequent administration from George Bush on was desperate to convince Russia that exactly this proposition 'wasn't' true, and that they don't view them as a threat and likewise Russia shouldn't view them as a threat.

Which one? The part where they acted against Russian aggressions or part where they failed to respond?

The part where the US refuses to respect the geopolitical security concerns of other countries and is driving the expansion a hostile military alliance all the way up to the borders of Russia. If NATO refuses to respect the security concerns of Russia, don't be surprised when Russia doesn't respect theirs.

Yes I did. And "approximately" was the key word in that sentence.

1912 is "approximately" last century. 1812 is not.

Since 1900, the major threats to Russian security have been:

  • Communist takeover in the context of a lost war of choice (Russia did not have a formal alliance against Serbia and was not obliged to threaten Austria. Russia orders general mobilization to make the threat against Austria more credible, which is the first aggressive move by a Great Power against another Great Power, and also the tipping point after which operational convenience is pushing the Great Powers into WW1 rather than away from it).
  • Domestic incompetence, repression, and genocide by the communist government, including a wide-ranging purge of experienced officers which temporarily gimped the combat effectiveness of the Soviet military.
  • Their ally in an aggressive war against Poland turning on them.
  • Nuclear conflict with their WW2 ally - the proximate cause being the Soviets ratting on the Yalta agreement by refusing to allow free elections in post-war Poland, and more generally setting up client states with repressive domestic policies in its sphere of influence rather than Finlands.
  • A crisis caused by the Soviets escalating said nuclear conflict by trying to put nukes in the USA's backyard.
  • A border dispute with their former ally, Red China.
  • The usual blowback from starting a land war in Asia in 1979
  • The collapse of the Soviet Union (causes unclear to me, but primarily domestic and not foreign) and an associated period of State failure and large-scale looting of public assets.
  • A Muslim insurgency in Chechnya and associated terrorism.
  • An attempted coup by the leader of a mercenary company set up in order to fight aggressive wars.

This doesn't look like invading its neighbors in order to create buffer zones has been a net positive for Russian security.

The collapse of the Soviet Union (causes unclear to me, but primarily domestic and not foreign) and an associated period of State failure and large-scale looting of public assets.

The reasons for that were utter failure of Soviet Union economical system, failure of political one and relative success of competition (google Boris Yeltsin 1989 supermarket for story illustrating how badly they failed). Also, noone believed in system enough to brutally suppress malcontents so they failed also at spiritual level.

(everyone knew that everyone was lying and everyone knew that others know and they lied anyway - and almost the same for stealing, that is not sustainable long term)

1912 is "approximately" last century. 1812 is not.

It's good enough for me.

This doesn't look like invading its neighbors in order to create buffer zones has been a net positive for Russian security.

Seeing as you didn't actually 'dispute' the examples I previously brought up, but merely added to the existing list you own set of conflicts, I'll take my point has having been proven.

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