site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34554 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.

Dreher apparently wrote an article that too specifically quoted Orbans thoughts. Supposedly it’s a bigger deal in Hungary but I believe there’s a few money quotes to discuss.

On Ukraine:

“To be clear, Viktor Orban doesn’t want the West to be in a war with Russia. But he says that far too many Westerners are deluding themselves about what’s really happening—and what could happen. . . .

Orban said that the West needs to understand that Putin cannot afford to lose, and will not lose, because he’s up for re-election next year, and he cannot run as the president who lost a war. What’s more, he said, Russia cannot allow NATO to establish a presence in Ukraine. The time has long passed when Russia might have been able to conquer Ukraine, or install a friendly regime. Had Russia won a quick victory, that might have been possible, but it’s hopeless now. Therefore, said Orban, Russia’s goal is to make Ukraine an ungovernable wreck, so the West cannot claim it as a prize. At this, they have already succeeded.”

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. Perhaps it gives you cover for peace or something to not say it directly, but for whatever reason war is not called war. I agree Putin probably can’t lose the war or he’s out of office and perhaps a sacrificial lamb for the next dude. Disagree Russia had any strategic fear of NATO. 100% agree a fear of EU in Russia was justified as the western cultural umbrella would spread easier which he didn’t mention but culture war I’ve always believed was far stronger than any military war. Think Putin could have won the war earlier with better planning by crushing the military in the east first. But they had bad intel. Now the west is invested so theirs no way for Putin to win so his only play I guess is to make Ukraine in the east depopulated. Perhaps that’s not losing at a high costs.

On EU:

“Someone asked the prime minister if he wanted Hungary to stay in the EU. “Definitely not!” he said, adding that Hungary has no choice, because 85 percent of its exports are within the EU.”

This is true everywhere. Our wealth is thru trade. The old meme - the right can just invent their own twitter, their own internet, their own payment system…….Everything is interconnected and dependent on others. Centralized services have better economies of scale. Hungary due to geography can only be wealthy by becoming interconnected in the EU. Some businesses more constant costs businesses do not have these factors - farming, light manufacturing, etc (mostly right dominated industries). The lefts conquered all the industries that scale or have strong network effects. And that’s where the culture war fight has come from of trying to not be dominated.

https://www.thebulwark.com/how-rod-dreher-caused-an-international-scandal-in-eastern-europe/

Disagree Russia had any strategic fear of NATO.

I find it really curious how it's hard for you to believe this rather than Putin being afraid that his kids will turn gay and do the nae nae on tiktok (aka the culture war).

The Russian ruling class are made of westophiles. All of them own(ed) properties in the West. They send(t) their kids to study at Western institutions. Their wives start(ed) designer brands to try to buy their way into Paris fashion week, and host(ed) museum installations to get clout. They enjoy(ed) traveling to Davos on their private jet every year to mingle with all the western thought leaders.

All the cultural anti-west rhetoric is just for show. The culture was already getting watered down by the western influence to the point where American pop/hip hop future stars would cultivate cult-like fanbases in Russia early on in their careers before getting any recognition on their own turf.

Putin and everyone around him don't give a fuck about the culture war. Putin loved the west. Hell, he even idolized Bush Jr. in 2003.

NT: How is Putin coming in in 2003?

Putin appears to be maneuvering. He is now dependent on his inner circle and does not trust them. Yes, an artist is born. There was also such a factor as the idolizing of U.S. President Bush Jr. One of the elements that swept Putin into the empire was the fact that he found himself in the club of world leaders. And which ones! Chirac, Tony Blair, Schroeder, Bush. That was a stronger team than the ones we have today. Although there was also a downward trend in that level. Source - Gleb Pavlovskiy, advisor to Putin from 1996 to 2011

Putin desperately wanted 'in'. He wanted Russia to be accepted into 'the West' (or I should say NATO). Not as another vassal, but as a peer (Source).

So here's my interpretation of Putin's POV. Institutions that were created solely to contrast USSR militarily don't disappear after USSR's collapse. They don't want to include you as a peer. They also start expanding. Does that justify being fearful about it? You tell me

Putin and everyone around him don't give a fuck about the culture war. Putin loved the west. Hell, he even idolized Bush Jr. in 2003.

The oligarchs have pragmatic reasons to want money in the West just like rich people in China try to get money into open markets where the state can't seize them (though Putin has shown that they themselves aren't safe there). And, certainly, we know of the hypocrisy of the Arab leaders who wish to enjoy "sin" themselves but have no intention of spreading that contagion to the rest of their populace.

Interestingly, your description of Putin being pro-West and then anti-West or a Eurasianist or whatever they're calling it nowadays, it that it sounds exactly like a tale of radicalization: man looks to the West/dominant power, gets rejected or becomes disillusioned and then turns around and starts militating against it.

There're many such cases. IIRC Gandhi's "awakening" was when he was mistreated in South Africa (as he saw it) despite being a British subject.

He wanted Russia to be accepted into 'the West' (or I should say NATO).

Obviously. Given that purpose of NATO was to counter Russia[1] (for very good reason) and Russian aggression, especially in Europe, then getting fox into henhouse and wrecking it would be a great idea. For Putin and Russian imperialism.

Fortunately it has not happened.

[1] At least from perspective of Poland.

but as a peer

Have you read source that you provided? This is untrue claim and contradicted by your own source.

Given that purpose of NATO was to counter Russia

The original purpose of NATO was to counter USSR, not Russia. There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

Fortunately it has not happened.

Ukraine is going to be an economic and demographic shithole after this is over and the EU is stuck being dependent on US for at least the next half a century. Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests? Why am I even asking, for a pole it for sure is.

Have you read source that you provided? This is untrue claim and contradicted by your own source.

I have. Have you? Here's words directly from horse's mouth.

Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

There is no country called America or Britain. Proper names are for tombstones.

The USSR was the successor state of the Russian Empire for a reason, and Russia was the successor state of the USSR for a reason too. These were all Russian-dominated states.

Moreover, from the perspective of people like the Poles, the USSR was the Russian Empire + communism.

Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests? Why am I even asking, for a pole it for sure is.

I will happily admit that yes, whether I or my family or my nation will be oppressed by Russia means to me more than X million dead in second Congo civil war or gas price.

Second, I am fine with "acknowledging its interests" - and then countering where interests diverge from ours.

Third, no idea why you think that accepting Russia into NATO would help. They would still do the same, and would make harder to counter them.

The original purpose of NATO was to counter USSR, not Russia. There was no country called 'Russia' in 1949 when it was created.

As far as geopolitics are concerned there is a clear succession from Grand Duchy of Moscow, Tsardom of Russia, Russian Empire, Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, USSR and Russian Federation.

I use Russia to refer to imperialist, aggressive and problematic country that used to be named USSR and after it got less powerful and lost ability to occupy part of invaded areas rebranded itself to Russian Federation.

I have. Have you? Here's words directly from horse's mouth.

Have you noticed "George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’" line? Exactly the first sentence of the article and clearly presenting that Russia was not ready to get rid of primary problem - its imperialistic ambitions.

And even if we assume that ‘countries that don’t matter’ is misinterpretation and "did not want to wait in line" is understandable... Then "did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process" from the first paragraph below photo is not at all.

Germany managed to give up militaristic imperial ambitions, hopefully Russia will crash and burn during current war enough to do the same and without selling their nukes to Iran or something.

Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining Nato “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

Russia was not ready to be an equal partner, see above.

Germany managed to give up militaristic imperial ambitions

I think that's a very flattering way to describe what happened which obscures why it won't happen for Russia and China.

Germany and Japan didn't so much give up imperial ambitions as they were ripped from their cold, nearly dead hands and then faced significant occupation and social engineering (especially in Germany)

As a nuclear power, this is impossible for Russia. If it isn't then - as you yourself worry - something has gone horribly wrong and it probably won't be to our benefit.

Ukraine is going to be an economic and demographic shithole after this is over and the EU is stuck being dependent on US for at least the next half a century. Is that the price worth paying for not accepting Russia into NATO and acknowledging its interests?

Which perspective are you taking here, EU or US? Because the arguments are not interchangeable. One can argue that from a US perspective, eastern europe is far away and unimportant and should be granted to russia for cheap. Otoh, for western europe, it's their backyard, their strategic sphere of influence. That euphemism of 'acknowledging russian interests', a russian geopolitical triumph would really mean brutal vassalage for eastern europeans, and partial finlandization for the stronger/further away european states. Avoiding that fate is definitely worth a lot of damage and some dependence on the US for western europeans. As to poles and ukrainians, understandably they are not keen on their countries being handed over because americans think they are too far away.

but as a peer (Source).

From your source:

“Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

Even from the start, Putin expected to be treated as a special snowflake. And coincidentally, being a NATO member in those days would have enabled him to veto its expansion.

Russia is a special snowflake compared to all the countries that joined around that time

Right, so Putin didn't want Russia to join NATO as a peer?

As a peer to US/UK yes, as a peer to the likes of Estonia no

Not the sort of attitude that gets a country into NATO, if its leaders are serious about it. If Putin wanted the benefits of NATO but not the cost of taking small states seriously, then that's no more of a serious interest than a child wanting a chocolate cake but not being willing to pay for it.

I just find it hard to take fear over self preservation seriously when the guy has a fleet of nuclear armed submarines. The fear is not that NATO tanks will roll through Ukraine and try to partition Russia, that would obviously end in global Armageddon and so will never happen. The fear is that Russia will not be able to determine the internal politics of neighbor former SSR's.

This is a predictable fear, states would rather be stronger than weaker, if Russia can boss around their neighbors they would like to continue doing that. NATO is a threat to reduce Russia from regional hegemon to irrelevancy and the EU/NATO bears responsibility in the sense that Russian aggression against it's neighbors was a predictable outcome of offering Ukraine self determination. But Russia bears responsibility in the moral sense because resolving to control your neighbors trade policies when you have less GDP than Brazil or Italy means you're going to have to resort to force or skullduggery because you can't compete economically.

IIRC the stated fear was actually the positioning of nuclear interdiction systems in Poland, which could convince Americans that they'd be able to launch a nuclear first strike without fear of retaliation. Those US leaders would be wrong to think that and wrong to even start going down that road, but they've put out a few white-papers on the subject, and by actually putting those ideas out into the world they have given Putin an iron-clad motivation for the war in Ukraine.

I just find it hard to take fear over self preservation seriously when the guy has a fleet of nuclear armed submarines.

Would the US of A get uneasy if China starts forming military partnerships with Mexico or Canada?

In my personal opinion, I don't think Putin was worried about NATO invasion. But being rejected a seat at the table and not having your concerns heard time and time again would probably induce some paranoia.

But Russia bears responsibility in the moral sense because resolving to control your neighbors trade policies when you have less GDP than Brazil or Italy means you're going to have to resort to force or skullduggery because you can't compete economically.

Don't think morals and world politics fit together. Overall, this is a correct statement. Not applicable to Ukraine though. In 2013, the EU deal Ukraine was offered (and which was rightfully rejected) was downright disrespectful. Russia's terms included trade agreements and cold hard cash amounts Ukraine couldn't even think of getting from EU at the time. So the carrot attempts were attempted before the stick came out. Didn't prevent Maidan from happening though.

From your logic they are already have culturally conquored by the west. So it doesn’t even matter if their militarily conquored. Our military occupation would just be forcing their kids to go to pride events and love black people.

Your logic leads to a conclusion that this war is just about ego. They weren’t happy being a junior partner in western instititions. They wanted the respect of a peer. They weren’t happy with Ukraine becoming a full western member and their ego wanted Ukraine to be their junior partner.

Fearful no. Ego yes.

They wanted the respect of a peer.

Maybe I'm saying the quiet part out loud here, but Russia is not a peer. It's the rump-state left behind by the collapse of the USSR. The countries in Eastern Europe are its peers, not Western Europe or America.

I think that some countries, which have little hope of competing internationally by themselves, willingly subordinate themselves to more powerful coalition leaders like the US, whereas other countries, which have the hope of standing on their own two feet, are reluctant to do this and instead try and act as autonomous agents. Subordinate agents don't hatch geopolitical complots by themselves, they instead go along with whatever the coalition leader organizes, sometimes leveraging their support in order to extract aid or benefits. Autonomous agents do attempt to move and shape things by themselves, generally with a view to maintaining or enhancing their relative power, with this being in view of maximizing their security. This describes how all states operate, including the US, either subordinating themselves or attempting to carve out their own fates.

They weren’t happy with Ukraine becoming a full western member and their ego wanted Ukraine to be their junior partner.

That's true. The fear may not be about NATO attacking Russia's land, but it's about attacking its sphere of influence. Is Russia entitled to the sphere of influence it inherited from USSR? We're finding it out now.

  1. Why be fearful? What exactly is the fear?

  2. If you are fearful, how does invading Ukraine help? It only makes NATO stronger. Is Russia more secure now?

Why be fearful? What exactly is the fear?

A military alliance set up specifically to contrast you comes closer and closer to your borders while taking over your sphere of influence and completely ignoring your voicing of concerns. Would US be ok with Mexico or Canada seeking closer military ties with China? Hell, let's not even go that far. What if China starts forming military partnerships with SK or Japan, how would US react? You know the answer.

If you are fearful, how does invading Ukraine help?

It doesn't. I have multiple theories why that happened, but I'm too lazy to write out a full thesis. In short: It was getting clear Ukraine is not gonna budge on staying neutral (not abiding by Minsk agreements, pro-peace politicians in Ukraine being pressured by pro-war factions to not back down, US getting more involved into Donbas conflict as time went on), so it was a now or never situation for Putin if he wanted to hold any influence over countries around Russia's borders. I doubt the war we have now was planned - analysts, even Western ones, didn't predict Ukraine would hold off that long. Also think Putin didn't expect EU to get as involved as it did. US's involvement was expected, but it wouldn't be able to do much if Germany or France lobbied against involvement within EU.

  1. One of the many justified fears could have been of something like what is happening right now: Russia feels compelled to enforce its interests militarily in a third country, but NATO uses its proximity to prevent it from doing so (by backing said country with equipment and intel, easily conveyed across shared borders and gathered with AWACS with range measured in the hundreds of kilometres).

    If Ukraine had actually joined NATO, this would obviously have been even worse: Russia clearly has interests in Ukraine (ranging from trade access, which was a core contention behind the 2014 revolution, via transit of petroleum products to Western Europe, where Ukraine stealing some portion was an issue decades before that, to the political implications of having a large neighbouring russophone country that might provide a safe harbour to opposition and subversives), which it would then have become impossible to enforce.

  2. They presumably didn't invade expecting to fail this hard. Had they won, at least Western commentators seemed to have been of the opinion that NATO would have been weakened (as its Eastern fringe would be more incentivised to hedge its bets between the US and Russia).

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