site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31669 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.

Well FDR couldn't because he was best buddies with Stalin. But the Germans by late 1944 weren't stupid. They knew they were losing. It was FDR's demand for unconditional surrender that kept them fighting. That was what glued them to Hitler. That and the Morgenthau plan was grist for Goebells' mills. He could fairly reasonably say that it was a war of annihilation, that any German who opposed Hitler in this darkest hour was betraying the fatherland. And so they fought on. The Germans were sending out peace feelers to the UK in 1940, they were trying to negotiate the whole war and especially towards the end.

Main goal of unconditional surrender policy was to avoid the botched end of WWI, avoid situation where the enemy will try for the third time. Allies were interested in victory, not negotiation and were beyond caring about German feelings.

It was successful, Germany hadn't waged any wars for 70+ years and isn't going to in the foreseable future.

The US didn't read the situation in 1944-5. They could've allied with Hitler against the Russians, or negotiated with German generals for a post-Hitler Germany.

LOL. Aside of political impossibility, why would you want to do it? Why keep around the Nazis (who were anything but "reliable allies"), when you can rebuild the country from point zero as you wish.

Again, you cannot deny it was succesful. West Germany was far more useful to US/NATO than any Nazi or "reformed Nazi" state would even going to be.

West Germany was far more useful to US/NATO than any Nazi or "reformed Nazi" state would even going to be.

West Germany served as a hypothetical meatshield against the Soviet Union. I'm talking about making it an actual meatshield against the Soviet Union. Note that nothing stops a US with a nuclear monopoly then turning on Germany again after its purpose is served.

"Oh you helped us beat the Russians? Well we're now going to reorganize your country anyway!"

Main goal of unconditional surrender policy was to avoid the botched end of WWI

If so, then it was a silly idea. They could simply decide to enforce the treaty they sign. How precisely you get to a treaty doesn't matter so much as whether its enforced or not. Furthermore, the balance of power was against Germany after WW2, you can't think that West Germany or modern Germany would be in a position to wage any offensive wars.

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