site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32146 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apparently, there is a viral video in Russia of a long discussion between a oppositional blogger and a pro-putin actor. I can only find a German news article on it, but I would love to see the whole interview (subtitled). However, I doubt such a video exists. For me, it is more the lack of effort by western media to gain insight into the thoughts of actual russians than the positions itself that I find astonishing and relevant to the culture war.

Both sides (pro-neutrality right and pro-ukraine left) have no interest whatsover to shed a light on the internal discussions in Russia.

Edit: The video exists on youtube, linked in a comment below. I feel dumb and incompetent now.

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/russland-gespraech-zwischen-putinisten-und-regierungskritiker-18626426.html

Oskar Kuchera is a 48-year-old actor and former host of the pop channel Muz-TV, which supports the Russian army. Recently, Yuri Dud, Russia's most popular blogger and opposition journalist, invited him for a three-hour interview. The interview appeared on Youtube on January 16, was viewed more than fourteen million times in the first few days, and continues to spread virally. For in the conversation, Kutschera reveals the mindsets of Putin's electorate, complete with jumbled ideas and propaganda slogans. On Youtube, he can be viewed like an exhibit in an exhibition about Russia. The Putin-supporting majority, here it is: seventy percent of the population merge into a nice, apolitical, basically peace-loving, not prone to analysis type.

Kutschera claims that Moscow and Kiev are equal for him; as the son of a Ukrainian Jew, he is half-Ukrainian. Like many Russians, he cannot answer the question of why Russia started the war. Apparently, propaganda changed the official purpose of the special military operation too often. Only the basic concept remains: the war started because America wanted to weaken Russia to get out of its economic crisis and arranged a war in Europe. And Russia did not start the war to conquer Ukraine, no! Although the September referenda in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya regions were, of course, a conquest of Ukrainian territory. But Kutschera does not understand much about this war, he is actually against war, war is terrible. But now he cannot turn against his country and its army. He supports Putin because he is on Russia's side, and the longer the war lasts, the more he trusts him.

"The West is waging war against us"

Dud: "Once again. Putin, whom you support, has started a denazification war . . ."

Kutschera: "I don't believe in denazification or demilitarization, I don't understand what it is. I think the real reason for the war is not told to us. I think this war is a global one. The special operation is not directed against Ukraine alone."

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

I have a simplified model of Russia. Imperial ambitions and territorial expansion is deeply embedded in their psyche. They never lost their colonial possession like the rest of Europe. Russian desires to dominate their neighbors is as deeply embedded as Americans clinging to their amendments. It’s what makes them feel Russian to be the top dog of their neighborhood.

Hence this is the war to end that with a humiliating defeat.

Centuries ago one people dominating the region may have been necessary due to the mongol/hun/etc, occasional European invasion threat due to geography. And hence Russia spent centuries fighting territorial expansion wars.

Jesus! Oh, these national ideas, printed in the genetic code since the time of the Huns. Is this a serious theory?

First, the negative attitude towards the US and NATO and the perception of its expansion as a threat to personal and state security. It started back in the Cold War and hasn't gone anywhere.

Secondly (and it's strange to me how people forget about internal and external groups in the culture wars thread) the population of Donbass is an internal group. And when Ukraine attacked a region that wanted to join Russia, the bulk of the Russian population perceived this as an attack on their own group with a predictable reaction. And the fact that there is no Ukrainian Internet and all Ukrainians are in RuNet only exacerbated the confrontation. And guro with Russian military finally consolidated this.

The NATO fear (which is irrational) dates back centuries. I also never said it was genetic. It’s cultural and educationally transmitted.

There’s no evidence Donbas wanted to join Russia. There’s never been independent not occupied votes.

Let’s remember Germany was spending like 1.3% of gdp on defense. Those areas that could have been “invasion” threats had already decided to unilaterally disarm.

I also never said it was genetic. It’s cultural and educationally transmitted.

After 1917 the Soviet Union completely changed the culture and education system. The Huns cannot be relevant.

here’s no evidence Donbas wanted to join Russia. There’s never been independent not occupied votes.

Well, first of all, it was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) .

And secondly, you will not create a successful militia in a small region, fighting the army of a 40-million country without the support of the local population. You can talk as much as you want about Strelkov connections with the FSB, but Strelkov had a lot of fighters from Donetsk. And the Russian army intervened in the conflict much later.

Let’s remember Germany was spending like 1.3% of gdp on defense

The US has never disarmed. And they actively demonstrated their readiness to attack random countries.

The NATO fear (which is irrational)

A military alliance with a population of a billion people and a GDP of 60 trillion that denies you the right to become a member, but stubbornly continues to push towards your borders, creating opportunities for proxy wars or a critical violation of your nuclear deterrent. Can't this be taken as a threat?

“In 1917 Soviets…..”

Did I miss all the Soviet invasions into Eastern Europe pre and post Cold War?

You know those referendums were not free and fair elections. And some population had left.

US did cut military spending. And outside of Mitt Romney like I remember some guy named Obama making fun of Romney and the Cold War and everyone laughed.

Edit: we never explicitly denied Russia from joining NATO. And a lot of analysts are disappointed with Germany and a lesser extent Italy and a few others providing Russia with the machinery they needed to build weapons. Germany built the Russian military infrastructure.

Did I miss all the Soviet invasions into Eastern Europe pre and post Cold War?

Yes, apparently you did. While I understand that Russian sympathizers here on the Motte like to imagine that Soviet history starts with Sputnik, there are a lot of people in Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Western Ukraine that would beg to differ. Let us not forget that Hitler and Stalin started out on the same side.

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