site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31259 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The main thrust of American policy regarding Russia since the end of the Cold War has been to keep Western Europe in line.

Not quite - there are two conflicting goals. America wants a stronger Europe so that they don't have to bear as much of the burden of defending Western civilisation (a slightly silly but clear example - America was annoyed that Europe couldn't police its own back yard in the former Yugoslavia) but at the same time they don't want a Europe that is strong and united enough that it can act in a co-ordinated way to oppose American interests.

Meanwhile this all looks like nothing but roses for China

I agree with you that this is all a net positive for China (yes their ally is being humiliated, but Russia's ability to give China what China wants is unaffected, and Russia's ability to say no to china is reduced). But there are two new pieces of information that are negative for China.

  1. Western weapons actually work when used in anger. This was not entirely obvious given how long it had been since the last non-COIN war.

  2. The West's willingness to actually do things to honour a soft security guarantee is stronger than expected. If China attacks Taiwan and fails to achieve a quick Blitzkrieg victory they have to assume that Taiwan will get even more western help than Ukraine did (because Taiwan is more valuable strategically), that nuclear threats won't stop the West helping Taiwan, and that minor economic disruption isn't going to force a change in policy.

How does anything get to a blockaded island that's being intensively bombed? Ukraine has giant land borders with NATO members - Taiwan is completely isolated.

If it's 'soft security' then Taiwan loses. They're totally dependent on shipping for fuel and energy. Only if the US actually wages war for them could they win.

If you're the US and you have the will, you conduct FONOPs during the blockade, and dare China to enforce it.

It's interesting to think how that would play out.

What happens if the Chinese say 'turn back' to the civilian vessel the US is escorting and then board the civilian ship? They've got a huge maritime militia for those things. Do you have US troops on the ship, locked in the wheelhouse, guarding the engine bay? Fistfights or improvised melee duels like the Indians and Chinese have in the Himalayas?

Or what if they just hit the freighter with an anti-ship missile and sink it?

And how are freighters offloading in ports that are being bombed? That's a pretty big, stationary target and China has plenty of missiles.

Yes, as the parent said, Taiwan can win only if US wages war.

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