site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29305 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, in Polish internet, there's currently some noise about mobilization. One user got summoned for the month-long military exercises, which supposedly ends with being forced to take an oath (which seems like a weird concept), and then being moved into 'active reserve'. Which means you can potentially get summoned for such exercises for 90 days per year.

A (translated) summary/context from /r/Polska:

1/ On the first of December, on the Wykop.pl, one user made an submission, saying that he had received a summons to undergo 33 days of training from the WCR (military recruitment center) in Sieradz. He had not done any military service before.

The post was quickly upvoted onto the frontpage and received nearly 7000 upvotes and 2000 comments.

2/ Gradually, from the Wykop portal, the topic began to make its way into our subreddit. One of the first extensive posts analyzing the situation was I got a summons to the army - what's next? by /u/emotional_penalty, which got almost 1500 upvotes and over 1000 comments.

3/ Questions and discussions began to emerge en masse both on Wykop and here to determine the grounds for such an appointment. The same user posted a local radio station's interview with a WCR Sieradz employee, who said that such summons are correct, and failure to appear comes with severe consequences.

4/ The topic began to grow more and more. Someone threw around the idea that the cause of the problem is the amendment to the Law on Universal Defense Obligation passed in the parliament this year, which imposes the possibility of taking a civilian with an assigned category of military fitness for military exercises.

5/ Upon reaching the parliamentary vote, it turns out that all deputies of all parties voted in favor of the law, except for half of the Confederation, who abstained.

Direct link to the results of that vote. Voted: 455, For: 450, Against: 0, Abstained: 5, Didn't vote: 5

6/ At this point, the "Wykop Effect" is now in full force, and the mainstream media are beginning to write about the issue. Examples of publications from more reliable and well-known media: 1, 2, 3

In addition, all sorts of commentators, influencers and various other social media figures + some politicians also write about it, some even manage to enrage their constituents

7/ Here we are.

Note that there are a lot of inconsistencies in individual posts, but also in individual media articles. This is characteristic of this "affair". Some sources say that no one at all except volunteers will be taken for the exercise, others that there will be 200000 people, others that several thousand. The form and timing of the exercises also varies, from 33 days as in "patient zero" from the Wykop, to 2 days as in a recent interview with the WCR's head of recruitment

As for the bill and the vote, it's worth noting that one of the biggest misrepresentations right now is to blame the issue on the current law. Yes, such a provision for the possibility of calling up a passive reserve for exercises exists, and deputies actually voted for this law. However, this is not a new provision.

In the amendment to the law from 2014, adopted by the Ewa Kopacz government, one can find:

1a. The peacetime military service obligation of persons transferred to the reserve who are not reserve soldiers shall consist of military exercises.

The law introduces the possibility of a civilian with a military category being called up for compulsory military exercises. Interestingly, concerns were already raised back then, and the military leadership reassured the public that this regulation is just a legal loophole, and that in practice they will not use it. Sample article from 2015

TL;DR: It is unclear what is true and what is not. Since 2014, the military has had the legal possibility to call up civilians for military exercises. In all likelihood, a summons does not yet imply the necessity to go to the exercises, but only to appear and present one's opinion on the subject and an individual assessment of whether or not the person will take such exercises. Potentially, if there are any such summons at all, they will mainly involve people in the medical field and, for example, professional drivers and mechanics.

@AM_Zukowska is a member of parliament, left-wing. Translation of some tweets:

@KorolukM: I pay mandatory taxes and expect the government to ensure my defense from that, not treat me like potential cannon meat. If it's not enough, I can pay more.

If you like the state shitting into your face, then by all means, no kink shaming. But don't throw that shit at others.

@AM_Zukowska: That is, how exactly, with whom is it to provide defense? Someone has to serve in the army and in case of war the state has to have trained conscripts. Sorry. Ideally, wars would not exist. But there have been wars since the dawn of mankind.

@nalu__xx: For you to write such a thing.... Well, I won't say that I'm not disappointed

@AM_Zukowska: I wrote that, because I feel responsible for the country.

@MoistureBusters: And is Private Anna-Maria going for training too?

@AM_Zukowska: I do not have a military qualification. I think that, unfortunately, with an eye defect of -7 diopters and retinal detachment I would not get one.

@Vimis23: So then what do you think, compulsory service for men and women? What do you say to that? Everyone for conscription. Equality is equality.

@AM_Zukowska: There has been no compulsory conscription for anyone since 2009. Military service is voluntary. There are, however, military exercises for those with a Category A military qualification. Since 2014, they are no longer only for reserve soldiers, because since 2009 we have less and less reserve.

I've also translated a text published by "Krytyka Polityczna", which is left-wing. Relevant context: in February there was a poll asking about support for mandatory conscription, here are the results, by gender. Women: 49% for, 47% against. Men: 39% for, 58% against.

Translation is in the separate comment (reply to this one), due to character count limit.

Interesting. Poland has been conducting a major military build up recently, buying a large number of Korean and American tanks, to go with their Leopards and upgraded T-72s. This quasi-training/mobilization would make sense to go with that. I don't understand what the point is, in strategic terms. They're in NATO, they've got good relations with the US. They've already got a large army by NATO standards. They can expect the rest of NATO to support them in a war.

What is the point of scrambling to buy hundreds of modern MBTs and creating a logistical nightmare? They're under a nuclear umbrella and their treaty allies have a military budget 10-20x larger than the only vaguely threatening force in the region? The only area Russia has parity is nuclear weapons, indeed they have superiority in that they have 2000 tactical nukes, much more than NATO. So what good is this large conventional force? I suppose it could help out the Ukrainians. But how does assisting Ukraine improve Polish security?

Imagine that the Russians had quickly won the war in Ukraine. Does it follow that they would invade Poland, who is in NATO and protected by nuclear powers? Poland also hasn't been fighting a low-level conflict with a Russian minority either, as in Ukraine and Georgia. There are Russian minorities in the Baltics and there's Transnistria, but there's no actual fighting there.

Now since Russia hasn't quickly won the war in Ukraine, surely it is even less likely that they would attack Poland. If there is a war between NATO and Russia, Russia would quickly start to lose. Then they'd use their massive advantage in tactical nukes to compensate, that's longstanding Russian doctrine. So what good are the tanks and the large conventional force Poland is making? Other than assisting with delusional US wars in the Middle East (Poland was amongst those who enthusiastically joined Iraq II), what can they do?

I suppose the Poles have been burnt by trusting their allies before. Maybe they think it's better to be safe than sorry. However, I think that the armies of Poland and Europe generally are just opportunistically expanding themselves now that they've got a decent-sounding excuse. Apart from tactical/strategic nukes and an embarrassing shortage of ammunition, they've already got more than they need.

What is the point of scrambling to buy hundreds of modern MBTs and creating a logistical nightmare? They're under a nuclear umbrella and their treaty allies have a military budget 10-20x larger than the only vaguely threatening force in the region? The only area Russia has parity is nuclear weapons, indeed they have superiority in that they have 2000 tactical nukes, much more than NATO. So what good is this large conventional force?

Are you aware how well relying on alliances went for Poland during WW II?

Also, have you seen how Germany is spending its 100 billion?

And why you call Russia "vaguely threatening force"? Ongoing invasion is far from vague. And far from being definite victory, Ukraine can still collapse.

Imagine that the Russians had quickly won the war in Ukraine. Does it follow that they would invade Poland, who is in NATO and protected by nuclear powers?

It seems a real risk for me. In fact my reaction to full scale invasion on 24th February was to start drafting emigration plans as I was worried that Russian army will not stop on Poland-Ukraine border. Fortunately war went in unexpected way.

If there is a war between NATO and Russia, Russia would quickly start to lose

What if there would war between Poland and Russia?

I suppose the Poles have been burnt by trusting their allies before.

yep

And Trump actually had a point about other NATO countries not pulling their weight.

I suppose it could help out the Ukrainians. But how does assisting Ukraine improve Polish security?

Makes need for updating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_Poland_against_Russia less likely.

So what good are the tanks and the large conventional force Poland is making?

Intervening in Estonia in case Russia gets uppity and still does not get that they are not entitled to empire in Central/Eastern Europe?

Protect against whatever is happening in 15 years? How many people predicted in 2007 that in 15 years we will have full scale war in Europe, with 100 000+ dead and numbers increasing? With Russia losing 1500 tanks? And getting distinction of being the first nuclear power having its strategic bomber base in own territory being hit by missiles (that their own former empire produced...)? Getting its flagship sunk?

And with Ukraine adding own losses, with just independently confirmed losses being large enough to equip all land armies of Western Europe and have leftovers?

On political side: who in 2007 would predict that Poland will give Ukraine 230+ tanks because they are being invaded by Russia?

How many predicted that Russian leadership will believe own propaganda and it will run WW II parody combined with Gulf War parody at cost of billions, 100 000+ dead people, massive human misery and other costs?

This war reminded that having an actual army is really useful also in XXI century, also for European countries.

Not entirely sure what will be happening and 2037 but at this point I am not willing to base defence on "war is not going to happen because we are in Europe and NATO". NATO has some chance to be de facto not existing in 2037.

However, I think that the armies of Poland and Europe generally are just opportunistically expanding themselves now that they've got a decent-sounding excuse.

Well, if Polish army would not manage to use THAT to expand/modernize then it would demonstrate absurd incompetence cough German procurement cough.

Note also that photographing yourself with pile of tanks will work nicely in upcoming elections. Especially given that weakest area of opposition was its handling of Russia-related international relations, also proposed handling of Belarusian border crisis.

So focusing topic on "we are importing bajillion tanks" is done in part (probably quite small one) to look well during upcoming elections.

So maybe scale is overly large, maybe opportunity costs is high but I do not think it is so clear case of waste/bad decision.

Protect against whatever is happening in 15 years? How many people predicted in 2007 that in 15 years we will have full scale war in Europe, with 100 000+ dead and numbers increasing?

The only thing that can protect Poland from Russia is nuclear weapons. If Poland is worried about having to fight Russia alone (in some nightmare scenario where NATO has disintegrated), they need nuclear weapons. Nothing else could save them. Now you might say that Poland can't get nuclear weapons because the US will throw a tantrum about it, that's the whole non-proliferation scam that they've been spruking for the last 70 years... But that's rather tangential to the massive conventional buildup.

This war reminded that having an actual army is really useful

Yes, if you don't have nuclear weapons!

Intervening in Estonia in case Russia gets uppity and still does not get that they are not entitled to empire in Central/Eastern Europe?

What if there would war between Poland and Russia?

If the Russians attack Estonia in the normal scenario (an extremely big if), where NATO is behind them, then Russia loses the conventional war and starts a nuclear war. Even if they go for the fait accompli of just storming in quickly (which they clearly aren't too good at), you can't just attack countries in major alliances and not expect retribution. That defeats the whole point. The US would counterattack, they have tripwire forces in the region.

In the nightmare scenario where NATO is gone and it's every state for themselves, the Poles get turned into a Russian satellite regardless of what conventional forces they have. What good are tanks if the enemy can raze your cities in minutes? I suppose they could try using conventional forces for a stalling action and desperately nuclearizing... but that's precisely the most dangerous position to be in if you face a nuclear power. That's when it's most logical to use nuclear weapons to quickly finish the war and pre-empt any nuclear counterattack.

Note also that photographing yourself with pile of tanks will work nicely in upcoming elections.

Certainly!

The only thing that can protect Poland from Russia is nuclear weapons. If Poland is worried about having to fight Russia alone (in some nightmare scenario where NATO has disintegrated), they need nuclear weapons.

As Ukraine is proving right now - having decent conventional army is also useful. USSR lost in Afghanistan, Russia lost the First Chechen War, USA lost multiple wars against enemies without nuclear weapons.

then Russia loses the conventional war and starts a nuclear war

Second is not guaranteed and escalates it into global conflict.

In the nightmare scenario where NATO is gone and it's every state for themselves, the Poles get turned into a Russian satellite regardless of what conventional forces they have. What good are tanks if the enemy can raze your cities in minutes?

There is also intermediate position with Poland in situation where Ukraine is right now.

As Ukraine is proving right now - having decent conventional army is also useful.

If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't need a decent conventional army, nor would they be fighting. Nuclear weapons are better for all defensive scenarios. Ukraine is proving that having a decent conventional army gets you five/six-figure casualties, economic devastation, power shortages and much of your country fleeing overseas. Nukes give you much better security.

Nuclear weapons are better for all defensive scenarios.

  1. but harder to obtain

  2. Not for all. You will not use nukes over minor incursion.

  3. I am not claiming that having decent conventional army is preferable to having nukes.

As we started from Poland: I am pretty sure that what was done to obtain this weapons would be glaringly insufficient to obtain nukes and enough ICBM/submarines/silos to act as counter to Russian invasion.

And conventional army would still be needed anyway.

  1. You don't need 1000 tanks to defend against minor incursions, only full-scale wars and nobody launches 'minor incursions' against nuclear powers - if they do they are quickly squelched by both sides

  2. Nukes are not hard to obtain for technically advanced countries like Poland

  3. Only 100-200 warheads are needed, an arsenal on the scale of Britain and France. Even ICBMs are unnecessary since Poland is close to Russia. They only need mobile launchers, which is somewhat complicated.

Supposedly the Poles plan to field 300,000 troops, an increase on their current 150,000. That's a lot of troops.

Nukes are not hard to obtain for technically advanced countries like Poland

Either I am deeply underestimating capacity of my country and its government or overestimate difficulty of getting nukes or overestimate how strongly other would react or you do the opposite.

But this claims seems laughable, even planned civilian nuclear power plant will be basically entirely imported tech. And importing nuke design would be quite hard to do.

only full-scale wars and nobody launches 'minor incursions' against nuclear powers

This is untrue, Falklands for start. Situation in Israel and 9/11 may also count.

Also, India-China and India-Pakistan.

And probably many other cases, that is only what I remembered right now.

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