site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22978 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 1, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If this is the case I am thinking of, it doesn't actually attribute the maidan sniper who was behind the protestor lines to the right sector, but rather places the sniper in a building they (and a lot of other people, iirc) were in (and out of) regularly. Which is not new-news, and has been a part of both* false-flag-sniper theories for some time.

*As both police and protestors were reported shot by snipers during the 20 February violence the tipped Euromaidan crisis into its resolution, both the pro-Euromaidan and anti-Euromaidan narratives have their own variation of 'the other side used a false flag sniper to shoot their own side and the other in order to make them feel the victim and escalate the crisis to its tipping point.' This has included the long-known point that one of the sniper firing points was from a building on the protestor side, which Ukrainian forensics verfied shot into the protestors facing the security forces from the rear.

The pro-Euromaidan theory is that the shooter was part of a covert government sniper to shoot both protestors and some police to force and legitimize the government crackdown the SBU had been advocating and setting groundwork for. The anti-Euromaidan theory is that it was a protestor-aligned provacateur, and while they agree that it was to escalate the crisis, this line of argument over time has increasingly downplayed / ignored the shooting of the police as well, which was the initially the line of argument 'proving' it was protestor snipers and that police were just protecting themselves.

(As I said- both attributions more or less agree that a false-flag sniper attack to shoot both sides was planned and conducted to escalate the crisis. Few argue that both sides coincidentally carried out their sniper plans on the same day.)

The building's primary relevance to either argument is as an argument to incredulity of if a government covert effort could get into a protestor building, and then escape in the chaos of the escalating violence outside. Pro-Euromaidan narratives don't find that unreasonable, and anti-Euromaidan narratives view it as so unreasonable that protestor-provacateur is the only remaining option. It tends to be the same sort of incredulity argument that maintains to this day that the Americans bombed the Nord Stream pipeline.

I had a larger post discussing some of the context of the 20 Feb snipers and post-Maidan propaganda dynamics, but then I realized there was a chance he was speaking of another court case I wasn't thinking of.

Okay. No_one posted their case, and it was not the one I was originally thinking of but one I am aware of.

This is one of the case which Ivan Katchanovski likes to cite as proving his Euromaidan-culpability false-flag thesis that he's spend his last decade publishing on. His inclination to refer to parts of it is directly correlated to how the contents support his thesis that the government was falsely accused for shooting protestors. For example, Katchanovski likes to gloss over section seven, and particularly the Court's scope exclusions that begin on page 13 noting-

  • all instructions about the alleged commission of criminal acts by other persons named in both indictments, who were not charged and whose guilt was not proven in a legal manner and was not established by a guilty verdict of the court, in particular, aimed at the commission of a terrorist attack combined with mass murders, to stop and violent dispersal of protest actions, planning, preparation, giving and execution of criminal orders, instructions and commissions for this purpose;

Aka, any action not found guilty in a Ukrainian court of law is excluded from the verdict.

Which, in a steelman, is defensible in the judicial process, but not necessarily in a truth-seeking process where whether something happened as opposed to whether it was proven in a court of law. Particularly when the court of law approach might be complicated by things such as known evidence destruction or defection of key witnesses / perpetrators to a country outside of the court's jurisdiction, like Russia.

As such, Ivan Katchanovski is inclined to ignore, not comment on, or push past the court record's acknowledgement of an unproven-but-not-disproven, but highly relevant claim, of-

  • as an unproven reference to receiving in the period from February 18 to 20, 2014 PERSON_376 a task from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs to prepare for the commission of a terrorist attack and mass intentional murders, giving his consent to perform such a task personally and by organizing its execution by RSP fighters;
  • as an unproven reference to receipt in the period from 08 h. 30 min. until 9 a.m. 00 min. On February 20, 2014, PERSON_376 was charged with a criminal order by the RSP forces, who were on the street. Instytutska, to carry out intentional murders in a generally dangerous way of the maximum possible unspecified circle of activists with the aim of intimidating them in order to completely stop the protests, as well as the fact of prior coordination with the commander of the PMOP of the tactics of actions of the RSP fighters for this purpose, a reference to the execution by PERSON_31 of the specified order when he , started on February 20, 2014 at approximately 8:00 a.m. 50 min. coordinate the withdrawal of units and special vehicles;
  • as an unproven indication that all the accused in the period of February 18, 19 and until 08:00 a.m. 30 min. On February 20, 2014, in fulfillment of a clearly criminal order, they exceeded their authority and official powers, participated in the commission of a terrorist attack, committed the intentional murders of two or more persons, attempted such murders, or prepared for such actions;
  • as an unproven reference to the purpose of giving PERSON_376 a clearly criminal order on the morning of February 20, 2014 to the subordinate fighters of the RSP specifically to commit a terrorist act.

I.e., an alleged- but never proven and thus disregarded for this court's purposes- core thesis of the 'government false flag' theory.

Now, Person_376 is not one of the person-descriptors identified in no_one's document. But, in short, the RSP were one of the armed elements in the Maidan Protestors, who were generally in the back / the deterrence for the police to charge and clear the square by force. Their existence / presence is about as old as Euromaidan itself. One of the sniper attacks on the morning of 20 Feb came from a building they had a heavy presence in, which is what this court case is about, which is also old news.

The anti-Euromaidan propaganda narrative is that these RSP key actors were Euromaidan provocateurs / foreign agents (of western powers) who staged in waiting for orders to conduct a false flag attack against Euromaidan protestors to blame the Yanukovych government and escalate the situation, with the intent to bring about the consequence the collapse of Ukrainian government as ended up happening.

The pro-Euromaidan propaganda narrative is that these RSP key actors were Ministry of Interior provacateurs / agents who were staged in waiting for orders to conduct a false flag attack against Euromaidan protestors to blame the protestors and escalate the situation, with the intent of suppressing the protests as part of the broader Ministry of Interior crackdown buildup, but which had the unintended consequence of collapsing the Ukrainian government as ended up happening.

Both pro- and anti-Euromaidan narratives are largely in agreement that the RSP key actors at the center of this case were staged false flag elements waiting for orders to conduct a false flag attack against Euromaidan protestors to escalate the situation, with the consequence of collapsing the Ukrainian government as ended up happening.

The difference in whose false-flag agents they were, and the intended result of the orders.

The court case doesn't take a position on this distinction, but Ivan Katchanovski likes to insinuate it does, and he is one of the main Reputable Scholars (TM) for the Euromaidan Is To Blame propaganda narrative.

@FCfromSSC

One of the sniper attacks on the morning of 20 Feb came from a building they had a heavy presence in, which is what this court case is about, which is also old news.

You're lying. The court case establishes that a substantial amount of people were shot from the areas not under control of police.

The conclusions of the jury court on the documented nature of the facts of the presence of firearms on the territory of "Maidan" and their use towards law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18 - 20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them, which are incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest action in principle, found their additional confirmation during the investigation in compliance with the procedure for opening additional photo materials (Part 11 of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). Such, in particular, are the 46 photos provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_678 (item 93 a. 122-167) and 12 photos provided by the defense attorney of PERSON_679 (item 174 a.) examined by the jury both in general and during the interrogation of individual victims and witnesses 2-13), on which more than 25 different objects are recorded, which by their obvious external features can be perceived as firearms of the type of rifles of various types, including, with an optical sight, pistols of various types and systems, and as many different shooters with these objects among the activists of the Maidan, who moved around the territory of the Maidan freely, felt protected there, and who in most cases are covered and accompanied by other activists, which indicates the falsity of the arguments about the principled separation of the Maidan from such persons.

The anti-Euromaidan propaganda narrative is that these RSP key actors were Euromaidan provocateurs / foreign agents (of western powers) who staged in waiting for orders to conduct a false flag attack

It's unreasonable to assume people who see nothing wrong with celebrating the Ukrainian WW2 nationalist resistance among whose deeds was killing 100,000 Polish civilians are obviously not going to be squeamish about making martyrs out of a few protesters. During this court case, surviving protesters testified they were shot at by other protestors. In fact, it's probably easier to find nationalist fanatics in Ukraine than to recruit genuine sociopaths who would willingly shoot civilians from abroad unless you hired some freelancers from Mexico or Colombia.

the deterrence for the police to charge and clear the square by force.

The translated excerpts show that these people started shooting at police from 5:30 am and managed to make them retreat. And the court also states that at least 10 people were shot by them. I mean, they were even shooting at foreign journalists. They were clearly pretty nuts.

Evaluating all the video recordings and photo materials examined during the trial in the context of the indictment, the jury noted that they documented in detail from various angles information about the situation of the confrontation between activists and law enforcement on February 18-20, 2014, in particular: the nature of the presence of firearms on the territory " Maidan" and its use in the direction of law enforcement officers from the territory controlled by activists in the central part of Kyiv on February 18 - 20, 2014, a significant number of such weapons and the persons who used them were recognized by the court as incompatible with the concept of forms and means of a peaceful protest in principle; the dynamics of the change in the situation on the morning of February 20, 2014 (the chaotic retreat of the law enforcement officers, which was accompanied by an attack (attacks and harassment) by activists, and some with objects that, by their external features, clearly resemble firearms of various types, protection by law enforcement officers, as a retreating party, with the use of all available special means, including water cannons, and only then the open use of firearms by law enforcement forces; movement and movement of the opposing sides from their occupied positions (law enforcement officers - up Instytutska St. with a delay associated with evacuation from the building of the October Palace, further behind snow and concrete barricades, and activists - gradual movement in waves in the direction of law enforcement officers to the edge of the snow barricade).

The court case noted they haven't proven there was a conspiracy to carry out this mass murder and violent protest, not that it didn't happen.

You're lying.

You are grammatically confused.

The statement you quoted is referring to the RSP, in the section of the Euromaidan protest area they were associated with, not the police and the government area of control.

The court case establishes that a substantial amount of people were shot from the areas not under control of police.

The court case also establishes that the RSP person of interest, suspected of leading the RSP shooting from areas not under control of the police, has been accused of- though not proven to be in an Ukrainian court of law- having been secretly under the control of the Ministry of the Interior.

Shooting from areas not under the control of the police is what is implied by an accusation that shooters were presenting themselves as protestors, from positions within the protestor areas of control, having been serving a nominal role for the protestors within the protestor area for some time, until directed into action by the Ministry of the Interior to conduct a terror attack for anti-protestor purposes.

There is no requirement that the executors of a false flag terrorist attack in service of the government have to walk outside of the protestor area of control, to the government area of control, before they begin shooting.

It's unreasonable to assume people who see nothing wrong with celebrating the Ukrainian WW2 nationalist resistance among whose deeds was killing 100,000 Polish civilians are obviously not going to be squeamish about making martyrs out of a few protesters. During this court case, surviving protesters testified they were shot at by other protestors. In fact, it's probably easier to find nationalist fanatics in Ukraine than to recruit genuine sociopaths who would willingly shoot civilians from abroad unless you hired some freelancers from Mexico or Colombia.

Thank you for identifying nationalism as a motive you consider acceptable for shooting the protestors. I will even agree with you that it would likely have been easier for the Ministry of Interior to find fanatics in Ukraine, even if the nationalistic fanatics for a MOI-conspiracy would probably be nationalists more associating national interest with Russia than the Europeans. This is a motive compatible with the allegations of that elements of a far-right movement were secretly responsive to the Ukrainian security state aligned with Russia and opposed to geopolitical alignment with the decadent euro-liberals.

The translated excerpts show that these people started shooting at police from 5:30 am and managed to make them retreat. And the court also states that at least 10 people were shot by them. I mean, they were even shooting at foreign journalists. They were clearly pretty nuts.

The translated excerpts also show what these people were doing in the days before that 5:30 AM shootings, which is what you quoted was referring to and what you appear to be trying to frame a rebuttal to.

The court case noted they haven't proven there was a conspiracy to carry out this mass murder and violent protest, not that it didn't happen.

That is rather the heart of the point. The other part of the point is that these same words, word for word, apply to both conspiracies, as does the data of the court case.

The court documents you yourself pointed to as evidence of your framing do not prove, disprove, or try to address one false flag conspiracy theory over the other. The contents of the document are just as compatible with the anti-Euromaidan narrative false flag conspiracy theory (that the RSP were protestors unaffiliated with the government, and wanted the government to be attributed as responsible in the chaos) as the yare with the other pro-Euromaidan narrative false flag conspiracy theory (that the RSP were protestors who were secretly affiliated with the government, who wanted the protestors to be attributed as responsible in the chaos).

The court documents do not provide distinguishing evidence. It does not provide differentiation between long-standing competing hypothesis. They raise data on how a false-flag attack was carried out, not why a false flag was carried out or in whose service.

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