site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31256 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The war will only end when enough Russian soldiers have been killed that it becomes politically or militarily impossible for the Russian regime to continue the war.

This statement is, very obviously, factually untrue, as the war will also end if enough Ukrainian soldiers die, or if Ukraine sues for peace, or of any combination of outside actors forces both sides to enter a ceasefire, or if Ukraine is destroyed with nuclear weapons etc. And since his entire "argument" hinges on that statement, if we disregard the issue of war guilt for a moment (I'm getting Versailles vibes), it's difficult to take it seriously.

But anyway, since this new story reminds me of the news story about a similar service in Israel, which gave Israeli schoolchildren a chance to write messages on artillery shells intended for targets in Lebanon and Gaza (yes, that actually happened), I have to wonder: is this writer and this politician Zionist? Have they ever expressed any opinion on Israel's foreign policy? I'm curious.

This statement is, very obviously, factually untrue, as the war will also end if enough Ukrainian soldiers die, or if Ukraine sues for peace, or of any combination of outside actors forces both sides to enter a ceasefire,

This doesn't make the state factually untrue, it adds additional truths not included in the statement. Which is true of all true statements, because there is always more true things to add.

Just by adding addition end states of the same categorization scheme, you are supporting the claim of the statement.

The war will only end when

I think this "only" quite explicitly excludes all other outcomes.

Only as a qualifier as totality of options, not as an assessment of what will play. If analysis dismisses other options as not going to happen, it doesn't become factually untrue in the normal construct of conversational language.

At which point this becomes a selective demand for rigor on the totality of bounding language, which is itself smuggles in a framing context expectation not claimed by the speaker. Note, however, that the objection wasn't to the totality of the bounding language, but the sub-claims, the disproof of which was by other claims of the same sort.

Obviously he lists scenarios that he prefers and finds probable, and not "aliens wipe out all human life, and the war becomes irrelevant". So it should be "The war will only end [in an acceptable to me and most Finnish people manner]".

This statement is, very obviously, factually untrue

Serious question (please don't take this as an offense — it's not intended as such) — are you autistic? You were the one, I believe, who said that living in Odesa and removing the statue of Catherine was a contradiction. And here you chose the most literal interpretation of this politician's words.

Were I autistic, would I be aware of it? I guess not, but again, I'm no doctor.

Yes, that's what I basically claimed, even though I didn't use the word "contradiction", and I mainly commented on the justification given for the removal, not the removal itself.

So it should be "The war will only end [in an acceptable to me and most Finnish people manner]".

That's a hell of a qualifier though, isn't it? When we speak of a war ending or not ending, that's not what we normally mean. I'm not aware what the "back and forth" mentioned by Stefferi was about, or what exactly this statement was supposed to be the response to, but he clearly wrote "The war will only end..." and not "Ukraine / The free world will only win if..." / "A honorable peace is only possible if..." / "Putin can only be defeated if..." etc.

I can only conclude that this Facebook post was designed to be completely propagandistic (which wouldn't be one bit surprising, of course), because it manipulates people's desires for seeing the war end.

I can only conclude that this Facebook post was designed to be completely propagandistic

What did you expect, an expert and impartial strategic analysis?

When addressing one's people, your own side's defeat is generally not considered as an option.

It's the brazenness of it all that I find somewhat surprising.

So do you agree that it's completely propagandistic or not?

I agree it's propagandistic, for it to be "completely" so it would have to be completely untruthful.

Were I autistic, would I be aware of it? I guess not, but again, I'm no doctor.

Yeah man, autists aren't insane. Or replicants, no matter what you have been told.

"He clearly wrote" a statement that clearly was not supposed to be literal.

I have to wonder: is this writer and this politician Zionist? Have they ever expressed any opinion on Israel's foreign policy? I'm curious.

"Moderately pro-Israel" would probably be the best descriptor. The Finnish Nazis would probably describe him as a Zionist, but to me, that phrase implies a fervent, committed defence of Israel, and Halla-aho has never particularly focused on this theme, simply because Israel/Palestine conflict does not loom particularly large in Finnish consciousness (compared to many other countries) and, apart from pro-Palestinian far left and pro-Israel evangelical Christians (both fairly minor groups), there simply isn't all that much interest in this topic. His stated stance is basically that Finland should refrain from condemning Israeli settlement policies in West Bank and should keep buying/selling weapons from/to Israel because that's the pragmatic thing to do, and this sort of a "moderately pro-Israel" stance is also common in the Finnish right simply because pro-Palestinianism is associated with the left.

If one goes here (a page with Halla-aho quotes in English), they can easily find one rather notorious statement on the Holocaust ("Retroactively opposing the Holocaust is nicer and easier than getting involved in solving present-day problems. It is nice to accuse the Germans because cosi fan tutti. Armenians are irrelevant, because Armenians don’t own Hollywood and the American media.") which occasionally gets mentioned when people delve into problematic Halla-aho quotes, but this was made before his political career really got going and he has not expressed similar sentiments since.

His stated stance is basically that Finland should refrain from condemning Israeli settlement policies in West Bank and should keep buying/selling weapons from/to Israel because that's the pragmatic thing to do, and this sort of a "moderately pro-Israel" stance is also common in the Finnish right simply because pro-Palestinianism is associated with the left.

Huh? Really?! Does this stance count as moderately pro-Israel "just" in Finnish right-wing circles, or also in Finland as a whole? Because if it does, I find it even more difficult to take any of this posturing seriously.

I mean, it seems pretty moderate of a stance- ignore the human rights violations so we can engage in trade(I’m assuming that, unlike in America, selling weapons to Israel means Israel will pay for them).

It's pretty moderate if that moderation is selective. After all, I'm sure he'd never argue that buying natural gas, oil, raw materials etc. from Russia is the pragmatic thing to do.

Finland used to buy those until 2022, even though Russia had already invaded Ukraine (ie. Crimea) and at the very least stoked the separatist conflict. Not to mention the other projects like Nord Stream, Rosatom constructing Finnish nuclear plants etc.

For Finland it isn't; because within living memory they had the Russia boot on their neck.

I'm not sure what you mean. I mainly used the word "moderately" since there's no fervent, explicit support for Israel as some sort of a special country that I'd associate with more committed pro-Israelis. If Israel, for instance, placed itself firmly in the Russian camp in the Israel/Palestine conflict, I don't think Halla-aho would have any major troubles in condemning Israel; a Christian Zionist who seriously believes that it's their God-given duty to defend Israel from anti-Zionists might face a dilemma.

I mean that this stance, objectively speaking, goes beyond "moderate" support, when looking at international relations as a whole. As far as I can tell, only the US provides support to Israel that is even less moderate than this.

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