site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31640 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 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.

9
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The blood of the Congolese boils at statues of Leopold II and Indians resent seeing Churchill being hailed as a the hero of the west in the same manner that Jews forth at the mouth when someone begins praising Hitler.

I'll not comment on Belgium, but I assume Indians could admit to themselves that, as the victory in WW2 remains the sole politically correct outlet of Western* (implicitly White) pride, the sole reason Churchill's assessment is still largely positive in the West is that he didn't practice 'appeasement' (whatever that means in context), unlike the dunce Chamberlain.

*technically this is incorrect as the USSR played the main role, of course, but it's also no coincidence that negating, questioning, delegitimizing and outright denying the Soviet role in final victory, especially since the beginning of the Ukrainian war, has become increasingly normalized in the West since a couple of years (I remember when Bush II explicitly condemned the Yalta Treaty)

  1. The USSR did not play "the main role". More of their soldiers died, yes, but they relied heavily on materiel, technology and intelligence supplied by the West. It was a joint effort. Plus, their role in the Pacific was minimal.

  2. This does not mean that the role the USSR did play has not been minimized. However, this minimization did not start in the past few years, as you claim, but during the Cold War, for obvious reasons. (See also: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/bxe58t/poll_in_france_which_country_contributed_the_most/)

I'm sure you're also aware that the Japanese were never going to surrender, no matter how many atomic bombs were dropped on them, as long as the USSR was neutral in the conflict, and thus there was hope, no matter how faint, that they were going to mediate an armistice and eventually peace between Japan and the Western Allies. In the end, they made the decision to surrender only after learning that the Soviets broke neutrality and invaded Manchuria. This was an absolutely necessary step to terminate the war.

Also, it's absolutely possible to rely on material assistance and still play the main role.

This plus the fact that there was a substantial portion of the Anglo/American right who felt that the war started with the invasion of Poland and should have ended with the liberation of Poland. The fact that the Stalin was allowed to keep the territory gained from his alliance with Hitler instead of sharing Hitler's fate stuck in a lot of craws.

Why wouldn't the Yalta Treaty be condemned? My country was stuck on the wrong side of the curtain for 45 years because Roosevelt used us as a bargaining chip.

Edit: And before you answer, I would like you to think very carefully about the role the Red Army played in WWII, in the context of Poland.

Why wouldn't the Yalta Treaty be condemned?

From the selected letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, one from 1943:

Nothing to read – and even the papers with nothing but Teheran Ballyhoo. Though I must admit that I smiled a kind of sickly smile and 'nearly curled up on the floor, and the subsequent proceedings interested me no more', when I heard of that bloodthirsty old murderer Josef Stalin inviting all nations to join a happy family of folks devoted to the abolition of tyranny & intolerance! But I must also admit that in the photograph our little cherub W. S. C. actually looked the biggest ruffian present.

(W.S.C. = Winston Churchill)

When Germany invaded Poland, what Red Army should have done? If they wouldn't have occupied Eastern parts, Germany would occupy all territory of Poland.

  • -10

It's not like they saw the Germans invading Poland and then quickly decided to invade to salvage what they could. The invasion was planned and coordinated between Germany and the Soviet Union from the start.

Was the Katyn massacre also part of the Soviet 4D chess strategy to beat the Nazis?

Yes, there was a pre-invasion plan between Germany and USSR. I don't think it included "Germans attack on 1 sep, then Germans urge Soviets to attack and Soviets reluctantly attack on 17 sep". Germany was more strong enough to beat Poland alone, didn't need Soviet help to do so and began to advance on territories which were planned be go to Soviet zone.

Was the Katyn massacre also part of the Soviet 4D chess

What does this have to do with this? This Soviet atrocity happened on RFSFR proper soil when invasion of Poland was finished

You forgot to mention that USSR and Germany cooperated in starting WW II - both in developing military power before, joint strategy planning, invading Poland and holding a military parade after victory.

what Red Army should have done?

Do not help Germans.

Do not attack Polish Army (also in 1920).

Leave after WW II ended.

Murder, rape and loot less.

The Soviet official explanation for partially annexing Poland may have been flimsy, but I'm sure it was not flimsier than the Allied explanation for invading Iran or Iceland.

The Allied explanation for invading Iceland was to deny it to the Germans, which while not the strongest moral justification in the world doesn't seem all that flimsy as to sincerity.

Why should I assume that the Germans were planning to invade Iceland?

On the other hand, why should I assume they were not planning to annex the whole of Poland?

I'm sure it was not flimsier than the Allied explanation for invading Iran or Iceland.

You are wrong.

Invading Poland by USSR in alliance with Third Reich Germany was done for much, much worse reasons.

And even if that claim would be true, it still does not explain why explicitly condemning the Yalta Treaty would be bad.

I wasn't talking about reasons, which we may or may not fully know in retrospect. I was talking about official justifications.

USSR official justification was flimsy because it was outright lie and fakery, exposed by clear and ongoing cooperation wither Third Reich.

I remember when Bush II explicitly condemned the Yalta Treaty

(it is about Yalta Conference AKA Crimea Conference AKA Argonaut, right?)

why that would be weird? USSR got there permission for brutal colonization of Central and Eastern Europe. I understand why USA and England was not interested in continuing war. At least Poland got a bit smarter about its international relationships since that time.

But why condemning this would be bad?

USSR played the main role, of course

one of main roles - yes

the main role? Not really. And no, share of effectiveness does not scale linearly with soldier death count, especially when deaths are caused by idiotic and murderous leadership.

outright denying the Soviet role in final victory

Denying role in the victory over Germany is lying. Denying role in liberation is quite accurate as Soviet victory was not liberation, just a different oppressor. There was kind of improvement as they were less genocidal and were running outright extermination on far lesser scale and targeting different groups. But "only some subset of you will be murdered and enslaved" is quite a low bar. And they stayed for far longer, so total damage was still very significant.

Unqualified describing Red Army victory as "liberation" and omitting USSR-Germany alliance that started WW II is as big omission as denying the Soviet role in final victory over Germany.

especially since the beginning of the Ukrainian war

Pity that war happened, but self-destruction of Russia in the war they stupidly started is delicious. And no, Russia is not entitled to empire in Eastern Europe, or Central Europe. And fortunately nowadays they have also no strength for that.

Finally consequences of USSR and their empire caught up with them.

More awareness of various Russia/Russian empire/USSR evils is just one of that nice things.

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