site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   35487 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Killing of Hamas leader 'doesn't help' ceasefire talks, says Biden

Mr Biden said he was “very concerned” about rising tensions in the Middle East. "We have the basis for a ceasefire. He [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] should move on it and they [Hamas] should move on it now."

He said he had spoken to Mr Netanyahu earlier on Thursday and had promised to protect Israel "against all threats from Iran", which has vowed to retaliate. Iran is Hamas's most important backer and is an arch-foe of Israel.

Is Israel Deliberately Provoking an Escalation That Might Drag the U.S. Into the Conflict?

Israel could have killed Haniyeh anywhere in the Middle East, yet deliberately chose to do so in Iran during the inauguration. That's not daring – that's the very definition of provocative.

Israel left Iran no choice but to retaliate, the scope of which remains the big question mark. But Israel also outsourced "escalation dominance" by handing to Iran to decision over whether to escalate. That's a legitimate course of policy – except that Iran may not see it that way.

The worst case scenario for Iran is an escalation that somehow involves the Americans. Iran's prize asset, its "military nuclear threshold" status, could be undermined in such an event if the United States, even reluctantly, is dragged into a conflict and attacks the Iranians.

This is where it gets interesting. Who has no interest in such an escalation? The United States, whose makeshift Middle East policy will now have to be revisited, and Iran, which clearly prefers attrition and low intensity.

Who does have a vested interest in an expanded war? Mr. Netanyahu. Which is why the conventional wisdom in Washington over the last 36 hours is that Israel carried out the Haniyeh assassination deliberately in Iran and intentionally on that day.

Does Netanyahu actually want to drag the US into a much larger war with Iran? Or is he content to strike humiliating blows against them, safe in the knowledge that the US's aegis protects them from massive retaliation, and Iran lacks the ability to pursue more fine-grained responses. Biden certainly doesn't seem to be happy either way, as his response to a wanted terrorist leader being eliminated, in a fairly elegant and collateral-minimizing way, shows.

Does Netanyahu actually want to drag the US into a much larger war with Iran? Or is he content to strike humiliating blows against them, safe in the knowledge that the US's aegis protects them from massive retaliation, and Iran lacks the ability to pursue more fine-grained responses. Biden certainly doesn't seem to be happy either way, as his response to a wanted terrorist leader being eliminated, in a fairly elegant and collateral-minimizing way, shows.

Seems to me to be an incorrect frame. Surely he doesn't really want a large war with Iran, precisely because that would be the inflection point at which their "aegis" (and exaggeration IMO) of the US is likely to break down. Just as with Ukraine, the main value proposition of supporting Israel is that no American blood need be spilt, and particularly with Israel (less so for Ukraine, but still mostly so) its super cheap for the amount of threat they absorb.

Now, some on the left don't particularly like the Israel alliance because they sympathize with Palestinians, or others have an Iran fetish. But, almost all of the Right and most of the center left agree with this general value proposition. But more of the left is slowly getting upset about it because the Hamas caucus is increasing in size on that side of the aisle and is making threats (IMO not credible ones) to not vote straight Democrat in the next election.

No American blood need be spilt in conflict with Iran? Why would it need to be even if we let Israel get steam rolled? Does Iran have ambitions in the Americas? If it's about oil and imperialism than plenty of American blood has already been spilt in the ME and Israel was less helpful than Europe.

Does Iran have ambitions in the Americas?

Yes. An Iran with the ability to do so would be meddling in western hemisphere geopolitics; they already do a little bit with backing anti-American regimes(granted, their support to Cuba doesn’t amount to much).

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