site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34900 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

On Ukraine I 100% the west, specifically NATO and the US, is at war with Russia. I often see the criticism from critics of the war that we do not understand this point. We do. It’s just in the modern world country’s don’t officially declare war. Russia did not. Nato did not.

It's an interesting question of how one defines war. Nazi Germany was not at war with Republican Spain, yet they had troops fighting alongside Franco unofficially as volunteers. The Soviets similarly sent air volunteers to China and fought some fairly large battles in Manchuria

You can have gradations of war below declared war. For instance, the US in Korea was doing a 'police action' as opposed to a declared war yet I think we all agree that the US was at war.

The British admitted to sending special forces to Ukraine (supposedly just for training or recon/ISR purposes), I have no doubt that the US has troops there as well. The assistance of Western intelligence and communications to Ukrainian forces is considerable, they're using US satellites down to a tactical level of firing at coordinates that are given to them.

But is this an actual war? I lean against it, on the basis that US and Russian brigades aren't actually fighting eachother. Even then it might still fall below the level of war, by some miracle, if the fighting starts and stops without officially being recognized. PRC and the USSR weren't at war, they just had some border skirmishes back in the day.

Didn't Zelensky make a joke like:

Russian 1: We're at war with NATO!

Russian 2: A war? How many troops have we lost?

Russian 1: 100,00 men, 100s of tanks and a battleship

Russian 2: That's a lot, how many casualties has NATO taken?

Russian 1: None.

It does seem a little absurd to say NATO is at war when the Russians aren't shooting at any NATO member states or their armed forces.

Well Russia is in a “special military operation” - obviously they are in a war. Nato is financing the Ukranian war and providing other things. Our industrial base and military depots are providing all the means to fight the war. So Natos mercenaries with NATO weapons are fighting the war. Pick your definition of war.

Funny thing is if we just sent American boots on the ground Putin would either have a choice of going full nuclear war (I think low probability 1%) or he could use it as an excuse for sueing for peace and saving face. That would actually solve his election issues he fought but couldn’t fight America cuz America is too strong and he didn’t want to end the world and showed prudence versus the Americans escalating.

Outside the box thinking what if Biden just got on airforce 1 and flew to Moscow to discuss peace? Would show a lot of respect that maybe a deal could be cut.

Natos mercenaries with NATO weapons are fighting the war.

Mercenary is a strange term to use for soldiers that will demobilise when the war ends, rather than being deployed by NATO to the next trouble spot.

Outside the box thinking what if Biden just got on airforce 1 and flew to Moscow to discuss peace? Would show a lot of respect that maybe a deal could be cut.

or you could ask Japanese Emperor or Abu-Bakr al-Bagadi as a mediator or arbiter. People from side that didn't work to start this mess.

If you are of my opinion that this war is about egos at this point then those guys don’t cut it. The Western emperor showing up deals with ego issues.

The term "war" generally means having many soldiers from both sides shooting at each other. Since there aren't NATO troops directly shooting at the Russians, the term "war" is indeed misleading. You could qualify it by calling it a "proxy war" which reasonable people could disagree on, but just referring to it as "Nato's war with Russia" is wrong.

The term "mercenary" refers to soldiers who fight for money. If they aren't paid, they'll refuse to fight. It was clear shortly after the onset of the conflict that the Ukrainian nation was going to fight regardless of whether the West gave them money. Sure, the money helped stabilize the economy and buy more arms, but Ukraine isn't fighting as part of a get-rich-quick scheme, it's fighting to survive.

You are mangling definitions to use the noncentral fallacy to try to inappropriately attach negative moral valence to political causes you disagree with. There's almost no practical difference between what you're doing here, and, say, wokists redefining the term "racism" as "power + privilege" to ensure that only white people can ever be "racist". Words have meanings, and we should all avoid abusing the dictionary to suit our political purposes.

What terms would you use in their stead?

Im using those terms because the anti war people will use those terms and I just want to admit to what they say so they can’t use those things as an argument. The Ukranians are still fighting for NATO interest with NATO pay and NATO weapons. It’s just they have their own interest too.

Sure proxy-war and proxy-mercenaries.

Natos mercenaries

[citation needed]

Sure they are mostly fighting for themselves. I remember an article of increase in wages for the Ukranian military early in the invasion. Since Ukraines economy has significantly shrunk who do you think is funding that.

And will eventually be responsible for significant rebuilding costs like in Iraq/Afghanistan. It might not be explicit $40k a soldier straight from US treasury but I don’t think the mercenary label for US interest is misleading.

To add onto what someone_from_poland is talking about, I think "mercenary" needs to be defined here. When I hear the word "mercenary," I imagine that which mercenaries in fiction are (sort-of?) based on: distinct paramilitary/private armed force units, available for contract to whoever is willing to pay. This includes what are typically called "private military contractors," a la Blackwater and Wagner, though it seems to me that groups like that tend to operate as paid additions to their home country's military, with the occasional aid to allied/client nations of their home country.

(Speaking of Blackwater, I almost wonder if they would be in their element in Ukraine, given their reputation as skull-crackers.)

Whereas I get the sense that "mercenaries" in Ukraine are just assorted foreign volunteers who might also get a decent paycheck on top of helping out. I also get the sense that these guys get mixed in with the regular troops (granted, PMCs from America and Russia are also used in this way, I think).

(Speaking of Blackwater, I almost wonder if they would be in their element in Ukraine, given their reputation as skull-crackers.)

I have no evidence of military behaviour, but officially they're doing humanitarian work. And to whatever extent it's a cover, there is real work going on for refugees.

To add onto what someone_from_poland is talking about, I think "mercenary" needs to be defined here.

Already had been done, in full legal way.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-against-recruitment-use-financing-and

For the purposes of the present Convention,

A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

First part of b/ is purely subjective, second part is not. What pay, if any do foreign volunteers in Ukraine get?

I think they get the same as the Ukrainian regulars, (which is probably not very much) -- otherwise they would be unlawful combatants and subject to all sorts of bad consequences if captured etc.

I get the point. If I’m talking to certain people that they are fighting for western interests. I like just giving them the term mercenary as American funded and American armed.

But on the pure front. I believe before Switzerland went neutral and everyone wanted that they were known as great soldiers for hirer who would fight for whichever side would fund them. They are not that.

In a more modern example a lot in Afghanistan seem to have been America backers as long as we were writing checks but were Taliban the second we decided not to pay them. I don’t think Ukrainians are suddenly Russians if we don’t back them.

I don’t think the mercenary label for US interest is misleading.

Describing Ukraine as deciding to be involved in war because they are paid for this is not matching what is actually happening. At all.

So it is heavily misleading.

I get your point. But armed with NATO guns and wages paid by NATO even if they are fighting for their own land I don’t think is hugely extreme to call them NATO mercenaries. False in the sense that your not hiring random country people to do the fighting.

The term you're looking for is "backed by NATO" or "NATO backed".

I don’t think is hugely extreme to call them NATO mercenaries. False in the sense that your not hiring random country people to do the fighting.

Well then you think wrong, it's false in the sense that it's false.

We are paying their wages. So mercenaries also isn’t false.

The Ukrainians would keep fighting if the pay stopped. That's not how mercenaries behave.

No, it is false.

NATO giving Ukraine funds used in part to pay its soldiers does not make them mercenary.

In the same way as me putting money into household budget does not make my wife a prostitute.

Someone fighting because they are paid (mercenary) is highly distinct from soldier being paid some wage.

In similar same way as prostitutes in are highly distinct from wives, despite that sex and money is involved somehow in both cases.

Or rape victim getting monetary compensation for what happened does not make her or him a prostitute.

(yeah, some overlap may happen - not applicable in this case, there is exactly 0 NATO mercenaries in Ukraine as far as I know, and as far as I know there is 0 NATO mercenaries worldwide).

But it is false, because that isn't what makes someone a mercenary.

It is, because wages alone do not a mercenary make, or else all professional militaries would be mercenaries, and yet the distinction between mercenaries and professional national militaries was the crux of the Napoleonic revolution. Money may be a fungible commodity but it does not imply contractual relationships with third parties made by the second party you gave money to.

A NATO mercenary is a relationship between NATO and the mercenary. A NATO-funded Ukrainian mercenary would be a mercenary employed by Ukraine with money provided by NATO. A Ukrainian soldier who draws pay is not a mercenary, even if NATO provides money to Ukraine, because there is no mercenary contract involved.

"NATO mercenary" has specific meaning. Is there any actual proof that NATO is sending its mercenaries? Or that NATO even has mercenaries to send?

Since Ukraines economy has significantly shrunk who do you think is funding that.

Well, countries during war have will to do drastic action like fire sale of resources, extra taxes, printing massive amount of money, dept repaid later for decades or centuries or never repaid, repurposing production, suspending labour laws...

To say nothing that people often are actually do much more than usual to spite people bombing them, especially of that is stuff like denouncing tax fraud.

"country at war manages to increase funding of military despite economic contraction" is not proving much

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