site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26712 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's not practical, because it discredits America and makes enemies of a billion Arabs. Even Joe Biden enabling the Israelis in their current operation is a huge blow to the perceived legitimacy of America in the region. Israel is not and has never been worth all the animosity it has earned the United States from the Arab world. Practical considerations means it's time's up on Israel failing to secure peace after many decades and enormous leeway and support.

It does not discredit the US one bit if it stops sending aid to Yemen. Note how the crisis in Yemen is caused by their Arab brethren, not by any western entity. In truth, the way that the US currently handles the situation - on the one hand arming the Saudis, and on the other hand feeding the Houthis - is causing you to look as two-faced as possible. Same goes for the Israeli-Arab situation. You're not winning any friends by playing both sides and prolonging wars, no matter what humanitarian justifications you may think up.

You also say that "Israel [...] has never been worth all the animosity it has earned the United States from the Arab world." To counter a "never" claim, one example is enough, thus I present you with "have doughnut". Western powers are well-known for being fickle and untrustworthy, only concerned with what your allies can supply you in the short term, but you don't have to play up to stereotype by totally forgetting the past. Maybe a more mild statement is called for.

That's not practical, because it discredits America and makes enemies of a billion Arabs.

Or to put it in another metric - 400 nukes.

I'm not aware of any Arab countries with nukes. Are you thinking of Pakistan?

No. I was referring to that it takes 400 nukes to make 0 arabs hate us from 1 billion

Ah, I see. I'm not an expert on nukes, but I'd think you'd need more than that to get them down to 0. Also, if you want to color only within the lines - i.e. not hit Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan etc. - you'd need to add some other, more accurate ordinance, just to get those corners filled out.

Killing a billion people would presumably make you several additional enemies among the people you didn't kill.

That's not practical, because it discredits America and makes enemies of a billion Arabs.

If the Iraq war and invasion (and eventual desertion) of Afghanistan didn't achieve this, not sure why Palestine is the red line.

I don't think you've got a strong argument for why "not sending endless amounts of aid" leads to making enemies of "a billion Arabs," most of whom have zero capability to even hurt U.S. interests.

I find the whole premise actively silly, to be honest.

There's only half a billion Arabs.

Maybe he was including future Arabs too?

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