site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35013 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

Rhodesia is an interesting case in that it is a 60 year old mirror of modern day progressivism. White rule is unacceptable, for equality's sake we will support Mr. Mugabe. We all know how it turned out, but that hasn't stopped the same thing from happening 30 years later in South Africa.

My question is, who at the time was the major force against Rhodesia? Was it the UK and/or Harold Wilson, was it the US and/or Lyndon Johnson? Was it instead a political party? Were these governments happy with the end result, or did they ever say that they made a mistake with Rhodesia? I would guess not, given that they continue to do the same things. Anyone have any extra insight on the who and the why for the putting down the most effective African regimes, which just happened to be white?

Two more gems from the NY Times archives:

Feburary 8, 1979 -- MAPUTO, Mozambique — What kind of man is Robert Mugabe, leader of the main guerrilla army now operating in Rhodesia? What kind of country would it be if he and his movement came to power?

The strongest impression, during an interview, was of an internal confidence approaching serenity. Mr. Mugabe speaks in a low voice, without the bombast of some other Rhodesian African nationalists. But he leaves no doubt that be believes his side is winning.

Americans would probably find him personally attractive despite his Marxist politics. He is a trim 50, the best‐educated of Rhodesia's leaders, articulate, rational, a practicing Catholic. He was a teacher and has several degrees — including a London University law degree earned by correspondence while he was a political prisoner of Ian Smith for ten years.

He was uncompromising in his opposition to Mr. Smith and the black figures in the “internal settlement.” They were continuing white dominance in disguise, he said, and he would not even negotiate with them — except perhaps “to bring about the necessary surrender.”

...But when he was asked about the future, when the war finally ends and Rhodesia becomes Zimbabwe, he did not sound doctrinaire. He emphasized that he was a socialist and was committed to redistributing wealth to “the dispossessed African,” but he spoke in pragmatic and gradualist terms.

His repeated talk of “realities” and what was “feasible” matched what some Westerners who know him well say of Robert Mugabe. That is that, having lived in Mozambique these last years, he does not like the ideological rigidity and economic troubles he has seen here- and does not want to make the same mistakes.

Could whites remain in a Zimbabwe ruled by Robert Mugabe? In terms of physical safety, their chances would probably be better than with any other African figure on the horizon. Even persons antagonistic to his politics concede that he is not corrupt, and the signs are that he has imposed discipline on a guerrilla army.

Four white prisoners of Mugabe's guerrillas, released here last week, spoke very favorably of the soldiers and repeated the compliments when they returned to Salisbury, to the embarrassment of the Smith Government. One of the captives was a seasoned British Army major, Thomas Wigglesworth, who said: “I was impressed with the guerrilla efficiency in the field, their discipline and particularly their high morale.”

For the American Government, Mr. Mugabe is a prickly problem. Conservatives denounce him as a “Marxist terrorist.” But he is doing well militarily and politically, and his mind does not seem closed. A Western diplomat said:

“He is the toughest but also the straightest. He doesn't say things to please people. Frankly, I think we can work with him.”

And from later in the year:

December 9, 1979 SALISBURY, Zimbabwe Rhodesia — If there was a betting line on the candidates to be this country's first internationally recognized black ruler, the shortest odds could well settle on Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe, the odd‐couple guerrilla leaders who accepted the basics of a British peace plan for the territory in London last week.

...Although the tide of the war is running in their favor, the guerrilla leaders evidently have accepted the British peace terms in the expectation that power will come to them more swiftly through the ballot box than by the barrels of their Soviet and Chinese supplied guns. Zimbabwe Rhodesia has yet to see scientifically conducted public opinion poll, but straws in the wind suggest that their confidence may not be misplaced....

...Another villager interjected: “All we want is for the war to end. It looks like the people who can do that are Nkomo and Mugabe.”

...Bishop Muzorewa, with strong support among urban blacks, cannot be counted out. The peace agreement bars him from forming a coalition with former Prime Minister Ian D. Smith's 20‐seat parliamentary bloc but the prelate will have the certainty of white support if he needs it. He also probably can count on backing from some of the other splinter groups, though not all. Others may disappear as the electioneering develops, taking shelter inside one or other of the main contending parties.

So the "international community" refused to recognize the black President (Muzorewa) of a black-white coalition government, they refused to lift any sanctions, meanwhile Soviet and China was arming Mugabe to fight against the Rhodesian government. And the American government and NY Times viewed Mugabe's rule as the best option for Rhodesia. Yeah, pretty clear to me that the NY Times/American Government/British government/"International Community" was midwifing Mugabe's takeover of the country.

Thanks for doing the dive. These are gold--right up there with the Harvard Crimson celebrating the glorious victory of the Khmer Rouge over the filthy western imperialists.

Here is another gem from the NY Times archives:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.—Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, in attempting to solve the problems of Southern Africa, has unwisely made a villain of Robert Mugabe. Press accounts of his trip last month indicated that Mr. Vance wanted to edge Mr. Mugabe out of a new Rhodesian settlement. Earlier, a Vance aide wrongly likened Mr. Mtigabe's electoral possibilities to those of George C. Wallace.

...Mr. Mugabe leads one wing of the Patriotic Front in its struggle to end white rule in Rhodesia. The other wing's leader is Joshua Nkomo, whom Secretary Vance and others persist trying to separate from Mr. Mugabe and, somehow, to merge with the white‐sponsored ongoing internal settlement that is propelling Rhodesia to ward an internationally unrecognized form of black-and-white condominium...

...Mr. Mugabe has always shunned the kinds of Sybaritic trappings that are so common among exiled liberationists. His asceticism and integrity are well known. He has managed by force of example since 1974 to give political coherence to the otherwise unsophisticated posturing of the Karanga military command. As stubborn as Mr. Mugabe sounds, only he is capable of selling an effective, fair settlement to the guerrillas.

Emphasis mine -- basically you can see the "international community" was unwilling to recognize the more creative Constitiutional setup that allowed for black voting and black rule but kept disproportionate white power and ensured a more moderate black president.

This bad take didn't stop the author of this article from having prestigous career in foreign affairs:

Robert Irwin Rotberg (born April 11, 1935) is an academic from the United States who served as President of the World Peace Foundation (1993–2010).[1] A professor in governance and foreign affairs, he was director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government (1999–2010), and has served in administrative positions at Tufts University and Lafayette College.

In 2003-2004, he served as a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Africa, and was a Presidential appointee to the Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2007 at the Kennedy School, he directed the establishment of the Index for African Governance, to help evaluate leaders for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, awarded annually by the Mo Ibrahim Foundation. A trustee of Oberlin College, Rotberg is a visiting professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium. In 2013 Rotberg became the Fulbright Research Chair in Political Development at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Canada.[2]

Mr. Rotberg seems to have deleted his early life section

south africa and zimbabwe fell into a shitty state after minority white rule was ended, but that doesn't justify it. the problems that plagued south africa after apartheid ended, like the AIDS crisis, weren't necessarily to do with the mandela government

Why wouldn't white rule over South Africa be justified? Can you clarify your presuppositions?

I could only presume those would be your presuppositions. And considering the implications of such presuppositions, I doubt anyone consistently holds to them. The primary reason that I ask that is the historical context of the region of SA. Most notably the fact that most of the black population there were recent immigrants.

The corruption and race communism that have led to severe decline, however, can fairly be placed at the feat of the ANC and Mugabe.

I agree that blaming Mandela specifically for the aids crisis would be foolish, and that the apartheid government would most likely not have done any better, or cared to.

for equality's sake we will support Mr. Mugabe

I didn't research this myself, but I've heard it asserted that Rhodesian army killed all the sensible moderate black leaders and the horrible monster Mugabe was the one who survived and ultimately took control. There were options other than "minority white rule or suffering under Mugabe". But they were all shot to death.

Edit: apparently not. I know Robert Evans asserted this twice. Don’t believe everything you hear in podcasts.

I was under the impression that Mugabe was the one who forced out/marginalized all his former liberationist comrades after the establishment of Zimbabwe, so perhaps both sides are at fault.

The winner of the first election was Abel Muzorewa, a moderate who the US didn't like. Mugabe won the election after they were forced to redo it.

I don't think there's any reliable way other than repression for a minority racial group to rule over a majority in the long run.

We can argue over the manner in which white rule in various countries was wound down/overturned/revolted against, and whether the short and medium term consequences were worth it, but on a long time scale, there's just no good way for Europe to rule Africa without repression, and no good reason why they should try.

Self determination means self determination even if the economic and social metrics important to westerners fall rather than rise.

Is there any reliable way other than repression for any minority to rule over a majority in the long run?

Well, yes. I think most if not all countries are ruled by a small minority of upper-crust aristocrats/bureaucrats/generals/rich dudes. Many are repressive to some degree, but not all.

Well then I'm confused by either what "repression" means or "long term" means. Which countries? Because there have been racial minorities in various parts of north africa and asia which have lasted many decades (some even centuries). I'm struggling to figure out a way to differentiate between these examples and yours. To me, your "racial" condition either isn't necessary or we're really splitting hairs about our perception of what "repression" means.

State your thesis and stop playing dumb.

prodding your "thesis" isn't playing dumb (but I already did state mine anyway)

To me, your "racial" condition either isn't necessary or we're really splitting hairs about our perception of what "repression" means.

you conditioned the statement on "racial," I don't think it's necessary and already gave examples where racial minorities ruled "without repression" for the "long term"

long term every single society trends towards repression to stave off collapse/regime change because power is necessarily held by a minority

What's the long run? The Manchus ruled over China for centuries, through integrating with and co-opting majority power structures. Same story with the Mughals over a Hindu-majority population.

And though they were repressive by modern standards, given the standards at the time, their repression was in line with what every government did to survive.

Yes, that's a good question. There are also examples with Arabs (and others) in North Africa and Greeks across Alexander the Great's collapsed empire. The "racial" condition on minorities ruling either isn't necessary or simply isn't true.

Pre Nationalism examples are sorta beside the point, but also we'd have to examine the social structure of Ptolemaic Egypt a lot more deeply to compare it in any way to apartheid. The ruling family was Greek, and some notables in the gov probably were as well, but I'm not under the impression that all positions of economic power were occupied exclusively by Greeks, that ownership was entirely vested in Greeks, etc. Foreign ruling families and even ruling cliques can exist in societies that aren't apartheid.

Yes, we would. Would all economic power be required to be held by Greeks in order for it to be "minority" rule?

Foreign ruling families and even ruling cliques can exist in societies that aren't apartheid.

is apartheid the metric for "repression"? where do you get your perception of what apartheid was like in South Africa? or the "repression" of the violent communists from mozambique in rhodesia?

Well our metric under discussion seems to be what is the point that the natives are unwilling to live under foreign/minority rule. I'm not really arguing repression so much as what constitutes an unacceptable foreign/minority rule. There's a distinct spectrum from the titular head of state being of foreign blood, such is the case for the majority of English history; to the entire upper class, say the top 5-10%, being a closed set of foreigners that a native could never enter.

The Ptolemaic dynasty and associated Greek ruling class was much closer at the outset, from my knowledge of it, to the former than the latter. Greeks and the Greek culture and language constituted a privileged and powerful position; but they adopted many Egyptian customs (notably sibling marriage), syncretized religious matters, intermarried extensively with the natives, and allowed native customs and religion to carry on as before when they first arrived.

What's the long run? The Manchus ruled over China for centuries, through integrating with and co-opting majority power structures. Same story with the Mughals over a Hindu-majority population.

Also depends on how you qualify repression. The Qing were very avid censors, the queue edict was not popular and was enforced in some cases with the death penalty, and my understanding is that the Ming-Qing transition involved very notable losses of historical texts in China (I recall being told that it was one of, if not the greatest, loss of Chinese historical texts recorded, but I don’t recall where I got that from - certainly there was a lot of purging of Ming-era texts). Much of this required considerably more coercion than in the Ming, for example, even though the Ming were if anything more dysfunctional. The Han Chinese also retained the resentment towards the Manchus through generations, culminating in the spectacular collapse of Qing power especially during the Taiping rebellion, the bloodiest civil war in history.

At the same time, the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors (early-mid Qing) are still remembered fondly as competent rulers, and the Qing would’ve been abortive if the Han did not, at large, choose to co-operate with the Qing during the Three Feudatories revolt. The banner forces performed badly on all levels compared to the Han-dominant (and larger) Green Standard Army during the revolt; nevertheless, there didn’t seem to be widespread appetite for Ming restoration (and joining with the revolt) from the population, the army, or the gentry.

So perhaps there is something of a middle ground? Minority rule requires a higher degree of coercion and repression, and is more precarious, though legitimacy can nonetheless be sustained for some time with good behaviour competent leadership.

Gosh, I'm embarrassed by how little I know of Chinese history. Do you have any recommendations for a good place to start? I would appreciate it, but don't waste a bunch of effort if you don't have it handy.

I’m not sure if you would get this through university access or some other way, or if you‘re looking for a shorter overview, but a good place to start reading in English is History of Imperial China. The series is an overview of China between the Qin and Qing periods (from the “unification of China” to the fall of empire), and is quite readable for a layman; though, necessarily as an overview text, it tend towards the broad rather than the deep.

If you want something else that‘s shorter or that’s, uh, more easily accessible please DM me!

Thanks! I'm sure I can get access through the local library. I'll start here and then figure out a period I want more depth in.

I’ve just learned that the Cambridge Illustrated History of China came out with a new edition in September so I had a scan of a preview of the book; I think that might be actually a better introduction. Or A Brief History of Chinese Civilization.

History of Imperial China is probably a more interesting text overall, but it tends towards being a bit less narrative in focus, and it is some 2000 pages long in six books…

(Also note that it’s the Cambridge Illustrated History of China, not the Cambridge History of China, which is a 18-volume-and-counting behemoth)

I’m happy to help! What are you interested in particular, and how much detail do you want?

Psyop'ing the majority into self-hate?

Good read, hadn't seen that one yet. So Moldbug says it was just Universalists being Universalists. It fits well, but it's interesting that despite the total collapse of Zimbabwe after "liberation," the anti-colonial crowd did not bat an eye. They just moved on to the next one. To me that seems more sinister than the simple naivete that Moldbug talks about.

I think there is a small but significant portion of the universalist establishment that are intellectually dishonest meme warriors who are so caught up in the left-versus-right battle that they will lead cancel mobs against those who bring up counter-narrative evidence and "give ammo to the other side." These warriors will also aggressively spin former events -- so Mugabe's rise becomes the fault of a the racist whites who never brought education and civic training to Rhodesia, or something like that. That Mugabe's rise could have been prevented if Carter had thrown his full support behind Muzorewa is something that just gets memory holed. The rest of the universalist establishment just receives their narratives from the intellectual environment shaped by these meme warriors, and so either never learn about the disaster that happened, or the disaster is spun in such a way that they don't understand why it happened.

so caught up in the left-versus-right battle that they will lead cancel mobs against those who bring up counter-narrative evidence

From the examples I've seen, "intellectually dishonest" is too innocent. Was Stalin or Lenin intellectually dishonest? I don't think so, I think they wanted to kill the kulaks and said whatever they had to say to make it happen.

Same thing with Rhodesia, I think they just hate the idea of white colonists so much that they depose him in favour of the nastiest guy they can find. The country burning afterwards is superior to it continuing to be prosperous under Smith's leadership. It's also the same as Soros DAs who are no longer prosecuting criminals. They don't care about the criminals, their motivation is hatred for normal people who fall victim to the criminals.

I don’t have a good mental model of soros DA’s, or indeed the kind of people who support them, but ‘hate the victims of criminals’ doesn’t seem like a good explanation for bad policy- for one thing, almost none of the victims are white kulaks that they dislike, they’re mostly poor minorities.

The Soros DAs have been doing their policies long enough to observe that the effect is... more crime. They are therefore pursuing this is a goal. The only real choices are "they love crims" and "they hate the people the crims attack". I prefer the latter, because nobody loves crims.

They could also be willfully ignorant, or they could believe they’re accomplishing some other goal(say, racial equity) that is more important than crime control.

Frankly, ‘they hate crime victims’ is the least likely explanation. I do not claim to understand them, but I feel like we can safely say they aren’t pure evil because very few people are.

The underlying cause is that the zeitgeist in the United States held that de facto white rule over a black majority (even if legally blacks were allowed to vote if they had enough property) was inherently immoral and illegitimate and that the United States as a moral force for democracy and goodness in the world should use whatever tools and powers it has to end white-rule around the world.

Exactly. This was the basic point of little thing going at the time called the "Cold War".

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Free World (TM), we fight for freedom and democracy. We are good guys, because we have freedom and democracy. Commies are bad guys, because they have no freedom and no democracy."

All sorts of dictatorships and colonial regimes on the Western side were obvious contradiction to the foundation premise of Cold War, source of nothing else than massive embarrassment and fodder for enemy propaganda.

Of course, we can imagine alternate worlds where the Cold War is justified differently.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are White World (TM), we fight for White supremacy over colored races forever and ever. We are good guys, because we are White. Commies are bad guys, because they are mongoloid Slavs and Chinks who refuse to understand that their duty is to submit to White Man."

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Christian World (TM), we fight for Jesus. We are good guys, because we love Jesus and Jesus loves us. Commies are bad guys, because they hate Jesus and Jesus hates them.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Scientific World (TM), we fight for Science, Order, Efficiency and Progress. We are good guys because we are the best and the brightest, the greatest scientists, engineers and organizers. Commies are bad guys, because they are ignorant vodka swilling party hacks bringing nothing than chaos and squalor."

ZANU and FRELIMO were both communist aligned guerrilla groups (or “terrorists” in the vernacular of the day and region) with ZANU supported by China and FRELIMO supported by China and the USSR at the time. Cold War good evil ranks communist vs noncommunist higher than postcolonial vs decolonial.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are White World (TM), we fight for White supremacy over colored races forever and ever. We are good guys, because we are White. Commies are bad guys, because they are mongoloid Slavs and Chinks who refuse to understand that their duty is to submit to White Man."

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Christian World (TM), we fight for Jesus. We are good guys, because we love Jesus and Jesus loves us. Commies are bad guys, because they hate Jesus and Jesus hates them.

"Who are we and what are we fighting for? We are Scientific World (TM), we fight for Science, Order, Efficiency and Progress. We are good guys because we are the best and the brightest, the greatest scientists, engineers and organizers. Commies are bad guys, because they are ignorant vodka swilling party hacks bringing nothing than chaos and squalor."

Well, the first two were tried, weren't they? Expect the first one was tried by Hitler (well, inconsistently, if you consider supporting Japan against the Euro colonial powers, but in some form still), and he lost. The second one was a strong narrative for the United States during the early Cold War, but there was an effort to move past it once it was realized that most of the ideological struggle happened in the Third World, and large parts of the Third World were not Christian at all, or were ruled by secularizing types like Nasser. The third one was a part of the US arsenal for the whole of the Cold War, what else was the Space Race supposed to be? It was pretty effective, but wasn't the be-all-end-all.

Other than that, though, yes, this is exactly it. As said, the great ideological struggle between the West and the East played out in the Third World, and standing foursquare against the colonial elites (and generally against regressive forces - tribal chieftains and others who wanted their peoples to remain in squalor while the modernity was passing them by) was a great card for the Soviet Union to play in that struggle. The West had to come up with their own narrative, and ended up being fairly successful at it, so successful that it was a good idea for them to keep maintaining that narrative even after the Cold War in case new challengers would come up (as they have - China, at least).

The second one was a strong narrative for the United States during the early Cold War, but there was an effort to move past it once it was realized that most of the ideological struggle happened in the Third World, and large parts of the Third World were not Christian at all, or were ruled by secularizing types like Nasser.

Cold war, especially early Cold War, religiosity was milquetoast nondenominational "judeochristian" faith, no burning religious zeal was welcomed at the time. Teleevangelists talking about Armageddon came much later.

It was about gestures like "In God We Trust" on money to remind godless commies that they might own a dollar for the time, but they are themselves owned by America.

There were attempts of specifically Christian resistance against USSR (link courtesy of our poster @Carlsbad). They were not succesful.

https://twitter.com/pompilivs/status/1596879002215800832

(of course, when you are shithole country so broke you cannot afford more than 15 minutes of radio per day and have to beg big brother even for few airplanes, you do not get to play "geopolitically independent force")

Other than that, though, yes, this is exactly it. As said, the great ideological struggle between the West and the East played out in the Third World, and standing foursquare against the colonial elites (and generally against regressive forces - tribal chieftains and others who wanted their peoples to remain in squalor while the modernity was passing them by) was a great card for the Soviet Union to play in that struggle. The West had to come up with their own narrative, and ended up being fairly successful at it, so successful that it was a good idea for them to keep maintaining that narrative even after the Cold War in case new challengers would come up (as they have - China, at least).

For the second round of Cold War, freedom and democracy went to the back burner (when was the last time you hear Western politician boasting about "free world"), and it looks that LGBTQ+ values will be the main western point.

This is something with less appeal than previous round's offer, but compared with Russian and Chinese raw gangsterism even substandard ideology looks good.

Eh, the US had no trouble backing dictatorships in Latin America or Asia. Rhodesia in particular aroused US ire, in large part because it was unapologetically colonialist.

Controversial opinion that I don't have time to write an effort post for: I think the causality you propose is backwards. The American liberal establishment was "anti-racist" because it was a way for them to feel good about themselves and feel morally superior to the American populist right. They wanted to push "anti-racism" abroad for the same reasons. Justifying pushing anti-racism abroad as an anti-Soviet Cold War strategy was a way to get moderate conservatives on board with the policy, it was not the underlying motivation for the policy.

So your contention is that Rhodesia was an incidental casualty for Cold War narrative points? Then why did they do exactly the same thing to RSA three years after the USSR collapsed?

Nothing accidental. We are talking about basic and non negotiable Western values of the time, values no one could openly spit on, even when he one claimed to be an "ally", especially when one was an ally.

"Our tribe was always loyal ally of our friend King of Spain, we were fighting together with him for a long time, why he continues to send missionaries to badger us and insult our faith? Why cannot he respect our traditions, why cannot he see that our religion is as valid as his?"

Apartheid collapsed because the white population was tired of fighting an endless insurgency against a population that outnumbered them. US opposition to the system was one factor, sure, but it wasn’t decisive.

The processes that led to the eventual collapse of apartheid started during the Cold War, and winning the Cold War didn't mean that the US could just give up and rest on its laurels instead of guarding its ideological flank against potential challengers (though arguably it did lead to a domestic culture war freeze for something like 15-20 years, which is why people now remiscine over the 90s and 00s as the time when you could still make jokes and stay stuff without people getting angry, or the Golden Years of online debate etc.)

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