site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31234 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 Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It would have remained a mostly peaceful special operation if the US and EU had not meddled like they did in so many other countries in the last few decades.

Even setting aside the factual inaccuracies, this doesn't explain your own inability to understand other people's viewpoint or priorities.

Clearly not, or else migrants would be going to the wealth in Africa, which is the highest it's ever been in human history, and not to wealthier countries elsewhere. This distinction in grades of wealth is itself held within the European Union, where Ukraine would not be the wealthiest, and thus not in the area where migration flows would be intending to go.

Yet the EU intended to distribute them to Hungary and Poland.

Ah! So you're not arguing the immigrants are going to Hungary and Poland because they're wealthy places now, I see. Will you update your prior argument accordingly?

Plus at some point being overrun by migrants will have an impact on the Western economies.

This does not explain your inability to understand why other people may not care about this as much as a quite violent invasion.

There is not.

Then why did you raise Poland as an example?

Ah! So you're not arguing the immigrants are going to Hungary and Poland because they're wealthy places now, I see. Will you update your prior argument accordingly?

Migrants are going to the EU because there is wealth there, and it's probably easy for migrants to take some of that wealth compared to other wealthy African countries where they have actual border and law enforcement and little welfare.

The EU has laws to force member countries to welcome these migrants even if the member countries don't want them.

This does not explain your inability to understand why other people may not care about this as much as a quite violent invasion.

I call it a mostly peaceful special operation. There would be way less violence if Ukraine had implemented gun control, disbanded their law enforcement and just let the Russians burn down their neighborhoods, like NATO likes to do at home.

Then why did you raise Poland as an example?

Poland is an example of a country that is ardently anti-Russia and seeks support from NATO and EU, like Ukraine.

However, they do not follow Sgt. Makhno's idea that 'everyone has the right to exist and live in our country.'

And they are getting punished for it by the EU.

Poland would love to have authoritarian immigration controls but they have chosen to bind themselves to globohomo EU/NATO.

Apparently, Sgt. Makhno loves the idea of a globohomo Ukraine where everybody is welcome, but then, why does he even care about Ukraine as a country?

The heads of EU and NATO hate traditional Ukrainian culture and want it erased with the rest of Western historical culture, so what is he fighting for?

Why not just flee to Poland or Germany, UK or USA?

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