site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   27881 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 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.

11
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

deleted

The last time anyone used a nuclear weapon in hostilities was Nagasaki. So using nukes now would break the taboo and I think that taboo needs to be enforced with the might of a thousand gods.

I've always thought this argument would be deeply unconvincing to anybody living in Russia or Japan. To them it might sound like

The last time nukes were used was when we, the Americans used them. If our enemies were to try the same thing - why it would be unspeakably horrific, and would prove our enemies are unredeemable monsters.

If this taboo needs to be enforced with the might of a thousand gods, the United States cannot be allowed to continue to exist. If they are allowed to exist after using nukes - well maybe their enemies have a chance of achieving the same feat.

Which is why I’m so against the current funding of Ukraine. It is one thing to prop it up and put it in a situation where it can achieve a reasonable negotiated peace.

But the current level of funding being provided is increasing the odds of something really catastrophic happening over a country that is not a close ally and is corrupt. Ukraine could be America and we could be France; but Ukraine could also be Afghanistan. Just isn’t worth the risk.

All very well said. But I think this would all happen much faster than we're used to in previous wars; there won't be any time for call-ups or general mobilisations. Here's a simple sample timeline -

T0 - Russia launches 20 Iskander SRBMs at Ukrainian C3 targets, triggering a collapse in unit cohesion and allowing Russian to seize key objectives

T+24 hours - A day of international outrage and emergency meetings. Strongest possible language from Biden & other NATO leaders. Fairly strong condemnation from China, India, and Brazil. Meanwhile Putin announces he's putting all nuclear forces on high alert and initiate civil defense drills across Russia.#

T+36 hours - After much wrangling, Biden achieves NATO support for a strike on Russian naval assets across the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Some 200 cruise missiles are launched, sinking a dozen Russian naval assets and hitting seven key bases in the region.

T +48 hours - Russia retaliates by launching a series of cruise missile strikes on NATO bases in Poland.

T +56 hours - NATO begins SEAD operations against bases on Russian soil in response to Poland attacks.

T +60 hours - After a JDAM hits a SAM site at a Russian airbase where nuclear bombers are stationed, Russia launches a series of three tactical nuclear strikes at American airbases in Poland. Putin announces that any further attacks on Russian nuclear sites (=most Russian airbases) will result in a full-scale counterforce strike on NATO nuclear assets worldwide.

What would you advise Biden to do? Should he have gotten off the train somewhere prior to this point? Escalation has a lethal logic all of its own, and there's a good reason why the West may decide to stick with diplomatic responses to limited Russian nuclear use in Ukraine.

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