site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32175 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 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.

13
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Uh, because it sorta takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Russia started the war to keep Ukraine out of NATO? NATO membership wasn't even an option for Ukraine when Russia invaded, and it hadn't been for over a decade at that point. The US wouldn't let them in.

But its also clear that the west was forging closer ties with Ukraine, and that NATO publicly stated in 2008 that "[Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO". Putin can only take NATO's words at face value. While the question of timing is interesting, it is not all that relevant to whether NATO is the reason for Putin's war. Putin's actions over the last 15 years can be seen as stalling tactics and preventative measures to delay or deny Ukraine eventual NATO membership. The specific timing at which he decided his interference is likely to fail is not all that informative. What he must do is act before Ukraine gains NATO protection. But he can't know exactly when that will be nor can he rely on predicting that point. The risk of acting too late from his perspective is infinitely more costly than acting too early.

The 2008 declaration's intentions died when Russia invaded Georgia, which is why Ukraine still didn't have a Membership Action Plan to join NATO almost a decade and a half after that declaration.

You're treating Ukraine's admittance to NATO as an inevitability. It never was, especially after the conflict in the Donbas got started, and then frozen. NATO's membership criteria explicitly prohibits admittance for nations with active territorial disputes. The West was in no hurry to help Ukraine resolve this dispute. Wars always carry big risks, and Putin didn't have to take them in Ukraine's case specifically for its admittance to NATO, because, again, NATO wasn't an option at this point, and hadn't been for over a decade.

You're treating Ukraine's admittance to NATO as an inevitability.

I'm doing no such thing. All I am doing is acknowledging that Putin cannot take for granted the kinds of claims you can take for granted from your epistemic position. Ukraine gets accepted into NATO when NATO wants to accept Ukraine. That's all Putin can know for sure. Why would he risk (from his perspective) the security of Russia based on arbitrary legal constraints that only have power by convention of NATO?

It's strange how all discussions regarding this war involve this basic error in assuming your adversary knows or believes the same things you know or believe and should act in according with your collection of beliefs. Further, that any war should be perfectly timed and motivated in accordance with these supposed facts. It's the fallacy of the Platonic ideal war. Of course, only one's enemies are held to such a standard.

The prohibition on accepting members with ongoing disputes is another indicator that NATO doesn't want to deal with open conflicts. It's not indicative by itself, but it's another piece of evidence pointing to one side.

should act in according with your collection of beliefs

Viewing the situation from a neutral lens shows the vast majority of substantive Western (especially American) actions after 2008 and 2014 as long-term acceptance of Ukraine's status as not being part of NATO. Rejecting Ukraine's calls to join the alliance for almost a decade isn't "believing an adversary should believe according to your beliefs" as you accuse me of doing, rather it's very basic geopolitical signaling. If blocking NATO expansion near Russia's borders was the primary concern, Putin would have been much more focused on Finland and Sweden which NATO very much did want to join for a long time. Finland might have been perceived as having a more robust military than Ukraine, but in terms of likeliness of joining NATO, it's also far, far higher. Instead, Putin hand-waved the threat away when it materialized.

One could dismiss all past evidence and signaling regarding NATO and say they'd still leap to accept Ukraine if Russia experienced a moment of weakness; one could dismiss the larger threat of Finland and Sweden joining NATO by claiming Putin (mistakenly) thought Ukraine would be much easier to occupy; One could dismiss Putin's eventual annexation of Ukrainian territories as just a consolation prize. But it's hard to argue with Putin's own words written shortly before the invasion, which puts the situation into perspective: NATO expansion was a secondary issue at most, and the invasion was more about empire building. It was about "reuniting the Triune Russian people", i.e. making Ukraine subservient to Russia in much more than just policies towards NATO.

It's not indicative by itself, but it's another piece of evidence pointing to one side.

First lets be clear, this is not a matter of preponderance of evidence, it is a matter of utility maximizing. Again, the risk from Putin's perspective for acting too late is massively greater than the risk of acting too early. So for the sum total of evidence to weigh against invasion rationally requires a near-totality of evidence against Ukraine admission. But the facts as Putin can know them are not so biased against Ukraine admission into NATO in the future.

Rejecting Ukraine's calls to join the alliance for almost a decade

When it comes to national security concerns, a decade is nothing. What about 100 years into the future? Ukraine codified their intent to join NATO into their constitution while NATO has made written overtures towards Ukraine's eventual admission. Why do you think these points should mean nothing to Putin from a utility-maximizing framework?

If blocking NATO expansion near Russia's borders was the primary concern, Putin would have been much more focused on Finland and Sweden which NATO very much did want to join for a long time.

Not all landmass is created equal. Putin has made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia were redlines. Finland and Sweden are less of a concern, probably because they are further north and don't have direct paths to mainland Europe. As far as strategic land value for staging force projection, Ukraine and Georgia are of much greater importance.

But it's hard to argue with Putin's own words written shortly before the invasion, which puts the situation into perspective: NATO expansion was a secondary issue at most, and the invasion was more about empire building.

Any war will have two justifications: one that represents the proximal cause for the decision makers, and one for the consumption of the masses. I don't know why internet commentators have such a hard time with this point. It's always interesting to notice when people are quick to take an adversary's statements at face value and when they contort themselves to question them. The blatant self-serving nature of taking Putin's statements at face value here but not the last few decades of anti-NATO expansion rhetoric should give any honest interlocutor pause.

That could have changed with a single election cycle.

Any number of things could change with the passage of time, but this particular issue hadn't changed in three election cycles, and there was no domestic push for it to, nor was there any indication that there would be (e.g. Obama's "pivot to Asia", Trump's focus on China and friendliness to Russia).

That it hasn't changed doesn't mean that it can't. You just need a candidate that among other things make it part of it's rethoric, like Trump did with China.

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