site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   3528 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 2, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You've commented this (or something similar) multiple times without any concrete examples. Obviously "Russia is a good traditional Christian country trying to restore her rightful borders and we should support them against Nazi Ukraine" is maximum propaganda, but what does an edge case look like?

Is simply talking about Ukrainian corruption enough to be propaganda? How about bringing up the suspended elections without the context of past suspensions under total war?

Yes. “Ukrainian corruption” is a dog whistle for Russian propaganda.

Isn't that a bit like saying "greenhouse gasses" is "environmentalist propaganda"?

No. Saying that Ukraine deserves to be invaded and the massacre at Bucha was warranted because they didn’t have an election during wartime where parts of the country can’t vote because they are occupied by Russia is Russian propaganda.

But that's not what you said in the previous comment?

Huh? I’m confused.

You said:

“Ukrainian corruption” is a dog whistle for Russian propaganda.

But Ukrainian corruption is directly observable and widely accepted as existing. When I pointed it out you responded by saying that the implication that Ukraine deserves to be invaded because they suspended their elections is what is Russian propaganda, but that doesn't seem relevant to anything that was said further up the response chain.

Ukrianian corruption has no relevance in the context of the Russian invasion. Ukraine could be a hellhole, and it still doesn’t deserve to be invaded. Bringing up “Ukrainian corruption” is repeating Russian propaganda in an attempt to justify the invasion.

Ukrianian corruption has no relevance in the context of the Russian invasion. Ukraine could be a hellhole, and it still doesn’t deserve to be invaded. Bringing up “Ukrainian corruption” is repeating Russian propaganda in an attempt to justify the invasion.

I disagree. I think Ukrainian corruption is quite relevant when it comes to how and how much 3rd parties might want to fund Ukraine's defenses. Just because Ukraine doesn't deserve to be invaded doesn't mean that it deserves to be helped in its defense by anyone else. The world isn't just, and it's also not anyone's responsibility to make it just. One can certainly argue that we ought to make it more just by making sure Russia's unjust invasion doesn't get rewarded, but taking that point for granted amounts to treating it like a religious crusade rather than politics and war.

More broadly, jumping to conclusions about motives and implications based on simple statements of judgment is something I'd rather see much less of in all contexts, and certainly on The Motte, and if you believe that doing so is correct, I believe you are correct that you'd be better off just ignoring this site.

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