site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28898 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, because Stalin, bad as he was, was not as bad as Hitler. If Germany had not attacked the USSR, chances of the Red Army taking even half of Europe (let alone all of it) are basically zero. He did attack Soviet Russia, which in a roundabout way, led to Soviet domination over half of the continent, which they never would have achieved otherwise, and yet was still a preferable outcome to Nazi domination over the entire continent. Hitler did far more damage to Poland in four years than the Soviets did in forty.

No, because Stalin, bad as he was, was not as bad as Hitler.

I'm not sure I agree, but I think he was more easily contained than Hitler. Effectively, appeasement worked with Stalin: the US and UK granted him dominion over Eastern Europe, but unlike Hitler, Stalin didn't try (through direct force) to advance further.

If Germany had not attacked the USSR, chances of the Red Army taking even half of Europe (let alone all of it) are basically zero.

Considering that the Soviets built up an armored force and a bomber force larger than that of the rest of the world combined, plus trained and fielded more paratroopers than the rest of the world combined as well, I wouldn't be so confident in this view.

The idea that the Soviets could have defeated a combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments is ridiculous. Most of what ultimately fell behind the Iron Curtain would have been beyond Stalin’s wildest ambitions before the German invasion and subsequent alliance with the British and Americans eventually allowed him to march to Berlin. And I also think it ignores internal developments in the Soviet Union and growing hostility to the previous internationalist Trotskyist era of Soviet policy.

In what universe was a "combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments" ever going to exist? Where did I even imply that? Of course that's ridiculous! And its' not what I meant.

When Operation Barbarossa took place, the Red Army was undergoing a long and tedious process of reorganization and rearmament. This was due to be completed in 1942, and was started years earlier under the obvious assumption that it'll be possible to provoke long attritional wars between capitalist regimes both in Europe and Asia*, leaving enough time for such a long-term program. Such a fresh and regenerated force, not mauled by a German surprise offensive, was going to be able to make short work of the Baltic, Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian armies for sure. The same applies to the puppet state of Manchukuo, and more or less to Poland as well. France and Britain were never going to get involved in such wars, and the Central Eastern Europen nations were never going to merge into an anti-Soviet alliance. And if the Germans were to get involved, nobody was going to ally with them.

*In Asia, we know that this worked; in Europe, it didn't, due to the French army folding.

In what universe was a "combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments" ever going to exist? Where did I even imply that? Of course that's ridiculous! And its' not what I meant.

Because the whole genesis of the question is VinoVeritas belief that Hitler was cool because he fought the bolsheviks, and that without Hitler the Red Army might have marched to the English Channel. But without Hitler causing WWII in the first place, a Soviet invasion of Europe would have faced an Anglo-Franco-German (and everybody else in Europe) alliance, with no aid from the US or anyone else, and been completely screwed.

Hard disagree but thank you for sharing your thoughts candidly

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