site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35413 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can anybody explain the Polish perspective on the Ukraine war?

I went to Poland and it looked like what Western Europe should look like. The urban areas were clean and seemingly safe. Indeed the people living there are mostly European or Slavic.

My understanding is that most of the tsunami of African or Middle-Eastern immigrants of the 2000s would rather go to Western Europe or Scandinavia for better welfare or economic prospects.

Still, Poland used to get in trouble with the EU for not wanting to take in a certain amount of them.

Moreover, Poland has also faced reprimand from the same union for their policies toward non-heterosexuals.

Why did Poland even join the EU? Did they really need the money so badly at the time?

Now it seems that Poland is going toward ever more alignment with the EU and US.

Are they really so scared of Russia that they would drink the corn syrup and give up on whatever is left of their culture/sovereignty/demographics?

Is anybody of relevance in Poland even attempting to contradict the pro-Western turn?

  • -14

You are unaware, perhaps, that Poland and Russia have a bit of a history?

They do, but so do Germany and Poland, or even USA and Poland, let's not forget the Lend-Lease that helped the USSR conquer Poland in the first place.

Why are the Poles so afraid of Russia?

Or are they afraid that they will lose their sovereignty and be forced to do horrible things, like welcoming people they do not like and allowing disgusting acts to be carried out on their countrymen?

Are they afraid that the Russians will replace the Polish population with an indistinguishable mix of ethnicities and cultures that have no bearing to the original Polish people and culture?

How do you figure that Lend-Lease helped the USSR conquer Poland? Your own link says that it was passed in March of 1941. The invasion of Poland was completed by October of 1939.

As others have noted, your grasp of the relevant history and politics seems a little shaky.

Presumably he's not talking about Lend-Lease enabling the 1939 invasions (plural; Hitler got half and Stalin got half) to happen, but rather enabling the invaded lands' retention afterwards. (Wikipedia says the parts incorporated into the USSR had something like 10M people, and of course the parts dominated by the USSR had everybody else) Without Lend-Lease we might easily imagine a world in which the USSR was too weak to be in any shape to race the other Allies to Berlin (or at least too weak to be able to afford a pause along the way waiting for Poles to get slaughtered, and too weak to object if we decided afterwards to let Poland return to the status quo ante bellum (because that's the natural Schelling point to discourage wars of conquest) rather than to the Potsdam agreement borders (because we were sick of war and because FDR was an idiot who played his hunch).

I'm not endorsing that theory, though. Alternate history is tricky, wishful thinking is easy. I don't see any reason why the good "USSR too weak without support, Poland freed half a century earlier" outcome would necessarily be much more likely than e.g. the atrocious "USSR way too weak without support, Nazis lock down Poland for years or decades longer and expel or kill tens of millions of Poles" outcome.

Either way, it's hard to argue that any of the major protagonists had the interest of the Polish people at heart while deciding its fate.

While Russia can be said to have somewhat recovered from its world-dominating communist fantasies, if anything the USA's foreign policy has only gotten worse.

While they had some semblance of justification to nuke Japan or firebomb Germany, hardly any moral observer can support the most recent US military interventions, which seemingly have to do with past allies turning into dictators or vice versa, and major US officials boldly reminiscing their history of coup d'etats.

Do you mean to imply that US foreign policy is more of a threat to Poland than is Russian foreign policy.

The Poles seem to think being under the American umbrella beats being under the Russian umbrella. Today, I can look at Serbia, at Armenia, at Kazakhstan, at Kyrgyzystan, at Belarus, at Ukraine, and see how the Poles have a point.

Why should they prefer being under Moscow's sway moreso than being under that of Washington/Brussel?

I'm not too familiar with the situation in all these countries. As far as I know, Serbia is relatively peaceful.

Ukraine is not exactly under the Russian umbrella, they are literally getting billions of dollars in supplies from the US to fight a war to the last Ukrainian.

After 50 years under Moscow, the Polish people still exists.

Aside from Ukraine and Israel, the US (or EU) are not really protecting the integrity of any country's borders, not even theirs, and that's one of the main expectations for a defense body.

Considering that they also flood their allied countries with consumerist and anti-natalist propaganda, they are a real risk for their allied country's people, at least from a demographic point of view.

The Poles find your arguments unconvincing, and are the most ardently anti-Russian people in the EU. I don't blame them. The Ukrainians might agree, and are fighting a war because they very clearly think people like you are wrong.

Mind you, the arguments you then bring forward are drivel too. Demographics in Russia and its sphere of influence are worse than the west's. You talk about propaganda without thinking for even a moment of what sorts of propaganda is blared from the other side. You talk about organisations protecting its borders that literally can't - the US because it is on the other side of the Atlantic, the EU because it doesn't have the people.

None of these things are oit-there facts particularly tough to find out about. They only require you to look beyond the part of the world that is extremely online. I don't know why you keep insisting on things that (large) nations of people nigh-unanimously agree on are wrong without stopping to listen to them and see what they are talking about.

Without the lend-lease, USSR logistics would have potentially collapsed before reaching Germany, and the USSR would not have been able to keep their annexed territories way beyond 1939, which is where a lot of the modern grudge comes from.

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