site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   36014 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.

Ukraine can be part of NATO without any change in the threat level for Russia.

Respectfully, this is silly, the border between Ukraine and Russia is (or was) nearly 2,000 km and that's a lot of extra airspace to cover if you're trying to defend against a first strike on either your nuclear assets or your command and control assets. Ukraine also had, I think, the largest non-Russian army in Europe, which meant adding them to NATO represented a much larger conventional threat.

I grant the "nuclear ace in the hole" that Russia has currently is a nice one to have, but will they have it forever? If the US gets a missile defense shield some Russian nuclear weapons might become unreliable as a deterrent.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't think Russia cares about Ukraine merely because of the conventional threat, but it's not serious to say "I have nukes, so my largest and best-armed European neighbor joining a de facto hostile military alliance poses zero threat to my national security." Of course it does. Unless you're suggesting that nuclear-armed states can have no conventional threats at all – in which case neither China or Russia pose a threat to the United States and nothing happening in Ukraine can reasonably bother England or France.

You didn't reply to the strongest point of my message, where I argue that your logic logically implies that Russia will never be safe until it controls the entire world (and you don't seem to intend to do anything to avoid it)

That's like saying because the United States objected to nuclear weapons in Cuba, they logically will blockade every country in the world until nuclear weapons are removed from them.

Obviously the presence of a peer competitor anywhere in the world does make you less safe, but if you can't predict that great powers treat their near environs differently than distant ones – and will find some security situations much more tolerable than others – I dunno what to tell you.

(and you don't seem to intend to do anything to avoid it)

Although probably both Vladimir Putin and JD Vance are Motte posters, I am neither, and thus my options for doing anything as regards Russia are pretty much nonexistent.

That's like saying because the United States objected to nuclear weapons in Cuba, they logically will blockade every country in the world until nuclear weapons are removed from them.

No, not at all. It would only work this way if the US were expanding their borders in the process (as Russia did with Crimea and wants to do with the four oblasts). Because when you expand your border they actually get closer from the threat, which justifies another war where you expand them further.

If Russia is so terrified with having its territory invaded, then the first step should be not to annex Crimea and Mariupol, because with their coast they provide a very sweet invasion spot, eg from Turkey.

if the US were expanding their borders in the process

Oh okay. So if Russia said "hey we're not expanding our borders, we're turning these oblasts into...Legally Distinct From Russia, er, Novorossiya" that would fly with you? Regime change is fine as long as border change isn't? Because the United States attempted regime change in Cuba, and took direct military action against it (that's what a blockade is). And in fact in a lot of places. And I am not convinced that couping people is Good and Friendly behavior.

Regime change is fine as long as border change isn't?

It's not about being fine or not, it's about disproving the claim that Russia is only interested in protecting itself against NATO

Well, that's not my claim and not what I think. But to the extent that they are interested in protecting themselves against NATO (and they are) you can't brush off flipping Ukraine to Team NATO as no big deal.

Yes it can because:

  1. it is not important for Russia: it's just an excuse (once again, if they felt threatened they just increased the threat)

  2. It's not important for NATO, given that the west has never really promised anything to Ukraine.

Therefore it seems to me you all say it is "important", but if it's neither important for Russia (their policy proves it) nor for NATO, I don't really think it can be important "per se"

In what world does Russia's policy of

  1. Strenuously insisting for years that Ukraine not join NATO
  2. Surrounding Ukraine with a massive army and sending a list of demands that includes "no joining NATO" and then finally
  3. Attacking Ukraine before it can benefit from NATO protections

Come around to prove that Russia doesn't find "Ukraine not joining NATO" important?

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