site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29202 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Summary of the Lex Fridman-President Zelensky interview

https://youtube.com/watch?v=u321m25rKXc&t=1142s

This interview has attracted a lot of controversy in the weeks leading up to it, as Fridman has said that he wanted to conduct the interview in Russian, which they both speak fluently. Zelensky did not want to conduct the interview in Russian for symbolic reasons that are probably quite easy to understand. In the lead up of the interview, Fridman has a 10 minute introduction in which he tries to justify why wanted to speak Russian, and then the first ten minutes of the real interview is him trying to convince Zelensky. His main argument is that if Zelensky speaks Russian, an interpreter would not be needed, and more of Zelensky's wit and dynamism would come through, and that there wouldn't be a 2-3 second delay in their communication. Fridman even made a warning popup saying "2-3 second delay!" when Zelensky began speaking Ukrainian and it was being interpreted. I've only seen one other Lex Fridman interview, with Milei, but there were no such warnings and disclaimers despite how it was live interpreted between Spanish and English. Zelensky does say he can explain some concepts in Russian if Fridman wants clarification but refuses to do the interview in general in Russian. Zelensky says he's also fine if Fridman speaks in Russian the whole time or switches between Russian and English. Also Fridman does understand a bit of Ukrainian himself but is not fluent.

Everyone I've seen, including Zelensky and myself, has seemed rather confused/upset by Fridman's very strong desire to do the interview in Russian, since the symbolic concerns seem to obviously outweigh those. Especially since using an interpreter is not really a big deal. Especially for a Lex Fridman interview, his interviews are known for him getting really excellent guests, but he just asks them a few vague guests and do 95% of the communicating themselves. There's little benefit to Fridman understanding Zelensky slightly better when all the listener's are going to get it dubbed anyway. Adding more fire to people thinking Fridman is a Russian sympathizer, in his introduction he goes out of his way to emphasize the nuance of the conflict and that he just wants peace for both sides. Many people would call the Russia-Ukraine war a fairly one sided war of aggression by Russia where peace could be achieved whenever Russia decided to withdraw from Ukrainian borders.

Points:

  1. Zelensky talks about Odessa, how it's a beautiful city, and fairly transparently tries to build sympathy by talking about how great and Ukrainian it is. Not that I can blame him.
  2. Zelensky talks a bit about how his father fought in WW2, and about how WW2 began. He compares Hitler to Putin in how they both are aggressive expansionists. Also Fridman continues small digs throughout the interview- "It took me a second to catch the joke", or Zelensky says "bullshit" while talking and Fridman says "I understand, I caught that one word". Fridman continues that passive-aggressive behaviour a few more times throughout the interview, I won't mention every time. And again, he did nothing like that for the Milei interview, the translation and dub was very seemless for that interview. You could miss that it even was translated if you started halfway through and didn't notice that lips were desynced from words.
  3. Zelensky talks about how in the beginning of the way, he had to make fast decisions and do a lot. They started distributing weapons to regular civilians in the capital. He also spent a lot of time communicating to the citizens of Ukraine, appearing in videos he could share through the internet, and that it was very important digital networks weren't disrupted. It was important because from day 1 there really was Russian disinformation, claiming Zelensky ran away, but he could show videos of himself just walking outside his office.
  4. In the beginning of the war, Zelensky, with the help of media contacts, would speak Russian in videos directed to Belarusians and Russians and other Russian speakers, asking them to speak out against the war and protest. He is upset about how Russian speakers seemed to have ignored him and weren't not interested in resisting Putin at all. That's part of why he doesn't want to speak Russian now, because in his experience speaking Russian doesn't actually convince any Russian speakers of his cause.
  5. Lex Fridman is confident this video will reach Russian speakers and will help, that it will spread over the internet even though youtube is blocked, that even Putin will see it. Zelensky calls Putin deaf, "even if he speaks to you".
  6. Zelensky talks about a meeting he had with Putin, I believe this one in 2019. Zelensky says he had a conversation with Putin where Putin offered a ceasefire deal, Zelensky did that math on the numbers Putin offered there and told Putin it would take 20 years for all soldiers to withdraw given those terms. Zelensky says that made him realized that Putin was not actually deeply involved in the details of what it'd take to make a withdrawal happen, that if Putin was serious he'd already have been constantly briefed on these numbers and know how to make things happen. But instead Putin was not serious or interested in a withdrawal.
  7. Zelensky says three things were agreed upon at that meeting. A deal for Germany to continue buying gas from Russia, a hostage exchange deal, and a ceasefire agreement. Russia violated the ceasefire after a month, and Zelensky called Putin in response to ask what happened. Putin didn't explain anything, there were more calls with Putin over the next few months, Putin eventually stopped responding. Zelensky wanted to make a ceasefire happen, Putin was not interested. Russia was talking bullshit, and meanwhile sending snipers into the contested areas.
  8. Zelensky says any ceasefire needs security guarantees, because lives are at stake, and Russia can't be trusted to keep their word on purely diplomatic deals with no military backing. Zelensky wants a security guarantee like partial NATO membership, and/or an arms aid package that would only be used if Russia violates the ceasefire. Zelensky is certain that if any ceasefire happens without security guarantees, Putin will just come again after three months.
  9. Zelensky wants more sanctions on Russia too, particularly on Russian energy. Zelensky wants to see the world buying more American oil instead of Russian oil.
  10. Lex Fridman's first idea for peace is "What if Ukraine and Russia are both accepted into NATO".
  11. Zelensky thinks security guarantees without the US's involvement would not be enough to stop Russia from breaking a ceasefire. Europe being involved in peace talks and Ukraine's future is important too, but the US by itself outweighs the rest of NATO/Europe combined in Zelensky's eyes.
  12. Zelensky seems to lose patience with Fridman as the interview goes along. Fridman keeps talking about Zelensky, Trump, and Putin sitting down together to strike a peace deal. Zelensky keeps trying to explaint that Putin is not a good faith actor and that strong security guarantees from the US are necessary for any peace.
  13. Another of Zelensky's security guarantee suggestions was for the US to give Ukraine Russia's 300 billion frozen assets, and then Ukraine buys American arms with that Russian money. Another suggestion is non-NATO alliance like what Israel has, where countries like the USA, France, Britain assist to shoot down missiles.
  14. Zelensky praises Trump a lot. Probably just politics because he knows he needs to brownnose Trump.
  15. Ukrainian elections will probably only be held after the war ends, because of all the difficulties with occupied territories voting, all the millions of Ukrainians who are abroad, the risk of cyber attacks. Zelensky hopes the war will end in 2025 and elections will then be held immediately. He is unsure if he'd run again himself.
  16. Ukraine has been fighting hard against corruption, it has set up sophiscated and independent anti-corruption agencies, but Ukraine is not corruption free yet
  17. The US has lots of weird, arguably corrupt, strings about how weapons purchases can happen itself. For example, Ukraine wanted to transport weapons from the US to Ukraine on its own fleet of cargo jets. The US said no, that if Ukraine wanted the America to send it weapons, they'd have to pay for American jets to move those weapons.
  18. One time in 2019 Zelensky was visiting the white house and he wanted to go for a morning jog, but US security policy would have a bunch of bodyguards in suits jogging alongside him, and he felt too awkward to make them do that when he was just in athletic wear.

In general, I got the impression Zelensky was trying hard to flatter the people he needed too and put Ukraine in the best possible light. Not that I can blame him, given his position. Lex Fridman seemed really weird in how he seemed very sympathetic to Russia but not outright saying that, despite how obvious it was.

I’m not sure we should be involved in a “security guarantee, simply because it’s going to be an endless stream of aid given out to Ukraine and it’s not in our interests. We need tge money at home.

It's in the US' best interests to punish rogue states that engage in expansionist wars. Providing weapons to Ukraine is a relatively cheap way of doing so. Better to hold the line here instead of next time Russia expands into an US ally. Better to make an example of Russia than to let Iran or China think they could get away expansionism too.

Then we'd have to mostly punish ourselves though.

Iraq was a bad war, but not expansionist. I think there should be a norm against invading to remove dictators, but it's okay that that's weaker than the norm against conquest.

I'm not sure which other wars you'd be referring to.

Ah so if you don't overtly annex the territory but control it in everything but name imperialism is okay? So also China invading Taiwan would be entirely ok since most countries recognize the one China policy and Taiwan as part of China?

The US does not control Iraq in everything but name, and did not control Afghanistan in everything but name. There were legitimate elections.

So also China invading Taiwan would be entirely ok since most countries recognize the one China policy and Taiwan as part of China?

Everyone knows they're separate even if there's a legal fiction otherwise

Yes everyone knows, they all know parts of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria were always part of Israel as well, but everyone knows Crimea was never part of Russia, just as Taiwan was never part of China. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

I think that legal fictions are important! If "everybody knows they're separate even if there's a legal fiction otherwise" in your personal life, you're still legally bound to your spouse until divorce proceedings are finalized.

The United States arguably should not have recognized the Chinese Communist government specifically for this reason.

Either "lol international law and treaties aren't real," in which case maybe things like Iraq and Afghanistan (or Ukraine or an invasion of Taiwan) were bad but they arguably weren't illegal, or any aggressive military force that a nation, including the United States, takes that is not in self-defense or approved by the UN Security Council are a violation of its obligations under both the UN Charter and, if the country happens to be a NATO member, Article 1 of the NATO charter, where all parties agree "to refrain in [its] international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

Now, someone is going to arrive and explain to me that there is some argument made somewhere that international law allows one to contravene what seems to be the absolutely kinda clear language of the UN and NATO charters. To which I say: it sounds like legal fictions are important. (But to which I also say: if you can launch an offensive military operation without UN approval and the UN General Assembly condemns it as a violation of international law but the UN Security Council never does anything about it because the member launching the operation sits on the Council, then maybe "lol international law and treaties aren't real.")

I happen to think that international law and custom is good and that it was arguably an absolutely massive mistake to tie any of that to a body as dysfunctional as the United Nations. But nobody forced us to sign the UN Charter or the NATO Charter.

You know what, you've convinced me that China militarily going into Taiwan would not be bad because "wars of expansion are bad". They could fairly call it a police action in domestic territory or whatever. I still think it'd be really bad because China is a dictatorship and Taiwan is a functional democracy, and I want more functional demcracy and less dictatorship.

More comments

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