site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   36733 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's been a fair amount of discussion of America's military aid to Ukraine, and no few condemnations of those of us who have opposed that aid. I am informed, in fact, that this forum is overrun with Russian Propaganda, such that some no longer wish to participate. This is lamentable if true, so I thought it might help to prompt some elaboration of the pro-Ukraine case.

People who support aid to Ukraine, in whatever form, suppose that you personally are given complete control over the US government, and can set policy however you wish. What would your answers be to the following questions?

  • How much aid would you provide? Weapons? Money? No-Fly Zone? Air support? Troops on the ground? Nuclear umbrella? Something else?

  • What is the end-state your policy is aiming for? A ceasefire? Deter subsequent Russian invasion? Restoration of Ukraine's original borders? The Russian army destroyed? Putin deposed? Russia broken up? Something else?

  • Is there an end-state or a potential event in the war that you think would falsify your understanding of the war, and convince you that providing aid was a bad idea? Another way of putting it is, do you think your views on the Ukraine war are falsifiable, and if so, what evidence would be sufficient for you to consider it falsified?

...Reading comments from those arguing for Ukraine, I've noted from the start that many of the arguments presented in favor of aid appear to be mutually-exclusive. In this most recent discussion, I've seen some people arguing that we should be sending in US or NATO troops, and other people arguing that of course no US or NATO troops are needed and that sending them would be obviously crazy. This is a natural consequence of many people arguing many points of view in one forum, but it seems helpful for people to lay out their own views when possible; often, these positions are just stated as though they should be obviously true.

Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Please allow me to begin by politely registering my disdain for your vagueposting.

I am informed, in fact, that this forum is overrun with Russian Propaganda, such that some no longer wish to participate.

I can sympathize with your sentiment, but while turnabout may be fair play, that does not make it good.

Anyway. For a little context, since of course nobody here knows who I am, I think my general political position is to the left of the median Motte attitude on many issues, but at the same time I have some views that would probably see me labeled a “dangerous fascist” or something like that in the deep-blue city in which I live. When it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian War, I would accept being labeled as something of a hawk. I believe we should have responded to the 2014 invasion of Crimea much the way we responded to 2022’s “full-scale” invasion. In fact, at the time I recall writing a short essay for my high school AP Lang class arguing in favor of sending Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian forces… but I digress.

So to answer each of your direct questions:

  1. I would provide weapons, money, training, and intelligence, much as we are now. Direct US military involvement, whether from the air only or with boots on the ground, would be foolish in the extreme. I doubt I need to convince anyone of that! However, I would have fewer strings attached to the support. I would have provided higher-end weapons sooner (with a concomitant greater urgency toward improving our own materiel production) and would apply far fewer, if any, restrictions on their use. Probably the only restriction I would apply is not to fire indiscriminately on civilian targets. Disallowing the Ukrainians from firing into Russian territory is/was, in my view, just nonsensical. This policy allowed the Russians to mass equipment just across the border, defeating the purpose of providing advanced long-range weapons in the first place. At that point you may as well not send any aid at all.
  2. The target end state of the war would be a formal peace treaty with a minimum of territorial concessions to Russia. Obviously Russia is the stronger country and a certain amount of concessions would be necessary, for example, I don’t see any realistic pathway to Ukraine getting Crimea back as part of the negotiations. We would be aiming for an outcome somewhat like Finland achieved at the end of the Winter War: losing on paper and giving up territory, but retaining independence and control over most of the country with formal recognition by the aggressor. This could in practice look something like giving up Crimea, probably Donetsk and Luhansk, and the occupied territory in Kursk while the Russians withdraw from the rest of their currently-occupied territories. After this treaty the Ukrainians would retain their democratic government and general pro-Western alignment.
  3. I suppose if Ukraine’s government collapsed, or if the country suffered demographic collapse, or if it looked like Russia was going to end the war stronger than when it started. Each of those would be fair grounds to call the US/Western backing a failure/waste, but frankly none of these really seem to be on the table as things stand.

To be honest, many of the right-wing-ish takes I’ve seen against aid for Ukraine (not necessarily yours, to be clear, I don’t really know what you personally think) seem to rely on an oddly naive view of the Russian Federation as a geopolitical actor, as though Putin is sitting at the table ready to sign a peace treaty and it is only Zelensky’s personal perfidy that is stopping this from happening. It takes two sides to end a war. The Russians have no incentive— none— to come to the table if the West ceases to back Ukraine. Let us not forget that the initial invasion plan was for an immediate decapitation strike to topple the Kyiv government and Russian troops parading in the streets on a days-long timetable. The big-picture goal has always been to absorb and annex certain territories (basically Crimea plus a connection to Russia proper) and turn the rump Ukraine into a subservient client state, like Belarus.

If the US drops its support for Ukraine, it will not lead to a swift end to the fighting, it will lead to an acceleration in fighting (even if after a pause) as the Russians press their newfound advantage. The only way this war ends in even a semi-permanent peace is for a formal treaty to be signed (probably involving some kind of UN, EU, or Turkish monitoring mission along the negotiated border), and that can only happen with Ukraine in a position of relative strength.

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