site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   34912 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 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.

Followup to my post here earlier where I wondered why Israel didn't forcibly establish filtration camps to stop the world, acquire every person in Gaza, determine which collaborate with Hamas, and release the remainder: The Telegraph: Former British special forces poised to deliver aid to new Gaza ‘gated communities’. They're proposing doing just that, controlling who gets into their safe zones, just in-place rather than stopping the world to do it. Props to I think @2rafa for calling it in advance.

I'm not sure how to expect the proposal to evolve from here as it makes contact with reality, though we can expect some likely elements from first principles:

  • creates an authentication system from scratch
  • enables physical segregation of approved and non-approved Gazans
  • enables inspection of goods passing through the physical border
  • enables inspection of any point in the safe zone on demand with no warning
  • enables detection of people and goods that are somehow present without passing through an inspection and vetting process
  • enables incremental expansion of the safe zone to cover a greater portion of the city
  • enables collaboration and hand-off of the reins from Israeli power structures to friendly Palestinian power structures.

How do you all see it working out? What will work, what won't? What failure modes are most likely?

I had no great foresight, sadly. My point was more that the desired Israeli solution to the conflict, ultimately, is to place the Palestinians under the care of some allied-ish government willing to mete out whatever necessary justice to keep the peace. The ideal would be to split the Palestinian Territories into governates or ‘Emirates’ ruled as de facto authoritarian police states by another Muslim country, perhaps Saudi Arabia or maybe even somewhere further afield, with the support of Israeli intelligence to quickly neutralize any threats. In exchange the government in question might be paid some amount of money and allowed the prestige of running Al Aqsa. The global Muslim community wouldn’t (and doesn’t) care much if other Arabs were being nasty to the Palestinians, which would lower tensions all around.

There is no allied-ish government, because the Palestinians have antagonized every possibility. The other Arab governments are happy for them to be a weapon against Israel, but they sure as hell don't want responsibility for them. Iran wants them even less.

Does it have to be Arab? I mean the British were in Palestine for decades. And so if anyone could take on the challenge, why not King Charles?

I'm pretty sure the British are done with the colonial game, which is too bad as they were one of the better players.

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