site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25657 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

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.

You should explain what 'RSP' in this context even means.

have been easier for the Ministry of Interior to find fanatics in Ukraine, even if the nationalistic fanatics for a MOI-conspiracy would p

Are you suggesting the MOI was interested in .. shooting their own officers, making them retreat and give up ground and escalating a protest into a bloodbath ? Why? At the day in question, the snipers caused the police to retreat and give up ground. None of this was in the interest of MOI or the government.

Thus, as was established by the results of the court proceedings, on February 20, 2014, in the period from 05:00 a.m. 30 min. until 9 a.m. unidentified persons used firearms to attack law enforcement officers, as a result of which 3 law enforcement officers were killed, and another 39 received gunshot wounds. A shot from a rifle in the direction of a law enforcement officer indicates that the accused began to implement the intention to kill such employees - the Supreme Court also drew attention to this (ruling dated 08.11.2022 in case No. 446/838/21, source: https:// reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105774898). Responding to the situation, which as of 8 a.m. 30 min. formed in the epicenter of the confrontation, individual units and groups of law enforcement officers began to independently and spontaneously leave their positions, which caused a further massive and disorganized retreat of law enforcement officers as a whole. Taking advantage of these panicked actions of the law enforcement officers, the activists also spontaneously and en masse went beyond their barricades and began to chase and attack the law enforcement forces with the use of "Molotov cocktails". In this way, the activists advanced up the street. Instytutskaya behind the bridge above it, the positions of law enforcement officers at the intersection of St. Instytutska and Khreshchatyk near building No. 7/11 (Ukrkoopspilka), forcing one part of them to flee down the stairs to the October Palace, and the other - in the direction of European Square. In the future, the activists also took under their control the nearest to the street. Khreschatyk (left) entrance to the building of the October Palace and approached the central entrance to it.

This make absolutely no sense as false flag. You are here saying you suspect this was police action. Right.

(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 shooting was coming from the part of the hotel where hardline nationalists were residing in. It's incredibldy naive to say the maidan protesters who were pretty well organized would have let their premises be used by armed provocateurs from the MOI ? That's.. quite a claim. If armed nationalists were in the hotel, which they were according to the testimonies, they'd not have let armed strangers in there.

They raise data on how a false-flag attack was carried out, not why a false flag was carried out or in whose service.

That's your conclusion based on your emotional requirements. The snipers who fired from nationalist positions could not have been MOI controlled unless the MOI was somehow involved in staging the coup itself and actually was running parts of Maidan. No force in a situation like this is going to let armed men it doesn't know walk around precisely bc of danger of provocateurs etc. Clearly, the shooters were known to the nationalists in Hotel 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