site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2586 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 7, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How can you (at least some of themotte posters, if you are not such a poster, i ask to you guess insight into their view) can say 'no appeasement towards Russia' given that the West has huge appeasement towards low IQ populations to that degree that even Ireland (once dubbed "the black man of Europe") who never did anything bad to non-Europeans participates in appeasement towards low IQ populations?

  • -11

There was quite a lot of appeasement toward Russia after 2014 and it’s quite possible that if the full scale invasion didn’t happen in 2022 relations would be almost fully normalized by now.

What you mean by appeasement after 2014? The West gave Russia some material wealth? Signed some beneficial (for Russia) treaty? Putin asked to put some of military stuff to back where it was in 1991 and officially limit NATO expansion. He was answered that even if Clinton ever has promised something Yeltsin back then, it was non-binding (in shorts, sucks to be you if you believed that). Or do you mean the West didn't kick Russia out of its institutions, didn't sanction to hell, and continued to trade goods -- for all of which Russia paid market price? What a chutzpa.

Has anybody ever said something like "we will condemn Ukraine's government to phase out Russian language if Russia stops putting Russian language requirement on its minorities"?

Wait, why would we? Russia is our enemy.

The low IQ populations are also presumably the enemy. So, if the West appeases low IQ-populations that are internal enemies, why not Russia too?

@aardvark2 I believe a majority of Motte posters would say no appeasement to both low-IQ populations and Russia, so the view is internally consistent.

As for Motte posters who are both anti-Russia and pro-low IQ populations, I cannot speak for them.

Seems like a category error to me: Russia is a nation-state, not a population. And if you're trying to suggest that Russia is a low-IQ nation, I don't think that's right. Russia is much like the United States of America, a geographically large multi-ethnic society. Its sharpest people are pretty sharp (in fact, there's an argument to be made that it's leadership class is better than Western equivalents, but that's a bit ol' tangent).

I'd like to hear that tangent. Was Russia's leadership class always better or is just relatively better in the present, due to the culture wars in the West?

I agree with @DradisPing that the Communists were terrible (although this didn't necessarily have anything to do with their talent pool; Soviet engineers were very innovative). I have an earlier comment where I compare Russia to other countries, and it seems fairly clear to me that despite being dealt a bad hand (despairing population, low TFR) Russia has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, fairly high GDP PPP per capita, and fewer drug deaths (per capita) than the US - all the sorts of managerial items that suggest, to me, fairly good governance.

Another way of looking at it is that Russia's GDP PPP is above (or roughly on par with) Estonia and Latvia (but behind Poland and Lithuania) even though it has less debt than those countries! And the Baltics and Poland have been in the EU for twenty years!

I think this framing is overly reductive and simplistic, but to me it strikes me the same way it would if you had two siblings, one of whom moved into the city, got their bachelor's, and enjoyed all that market access had to offer, and the other stayed in their small hometown. If you checked back in in 20 years and you found that one of them hadn't paid off their (substantial) student loans despite working a well-paying job in the big city while the other's only substantial debt was a mortgage, and they both had a house and a car and a TV, you'd have to conclude the second brother was better at managing his money. If the second brother had managed to accomplish that despite crippling depression and a year in jail for a DUI you'd be more impressed by his self-management, not less.

Caveat that the war may change all of this in the long term.

Getting into devastating wars is part of Russia's time-honored history, they do get a bit wrecked but always end up surviving, though the elites may get shuffled up. The wars may even be a source of eugenic pressure keeping the IQ high, as the generally low IQ front line chaff is killed off.

Not always better. Despite always having ardent defenders on the left, the communists were just terrible.

Basically in the post communist era it's been clear that Russia was much poorer than it should have been. So a lot of bright minds went into government to improve things.

In the West improving things inevitably involves fighting tooth and nail with entrenched powers.

I post-Soviet Russia smart people can dedicate their lives to looking for easy wins.

The big problem that the West has is that their elite has been focussed on how to get rich in the global economy. That doesn't require them to improve things in their actual countries at all, and in some cases making them worse will be more personally profitable.

But are you correcting for the fact that Tsarist Russia was basically a feudal backwater? It’s not like the communists inherited a shiny industrial state and then drove it i to the ground. They’re the only reason the industrial state exists at all.

So historians tend to have either a pro-Soviet or anti-Russian bias. If you start looking into the numbers Russia was well behind the great powers but industrializing.

At the dawn of WW1 Russia had more km of railway than anyone except the US. Note that sources split the UK and British India, so you can easily argue that the UK was ahead. Obviously that's spread over a massive territory, but it's still something. The Trans-Siberian Railway was pre-communist.

During WW1 the Russian Empire was making it's own artillery, rifles, and armoured cars.

Sure it was underdeveloped, but it was a major oil producer during the age of oil. A more moderate government would have been able to industrialize a bit more slowly but with far fewer corpses.

The big problem that the West has is that their elite has been focussed on how to get rich in the global economy.

That’s been true since Columbus; clearly it can coexist with a desire for local improvements. Conversely, local industry does not automatically trickle down to local quality of life. For every urban core there were a dozen company-operated mill and mining towns operating on the margin.

On the other end, if you look at the top American companies or billionaires, they all sell stuff to Westerners. After all, we have the most money. If those purchases mean anything at all, we’ve been getting something out of this massive, interconnected mess. Clothing, food, electronics—none of those markets look the same under an autarkic model. The real benefits came from extending specialization of labor.

Alright. I’m interpreting your question as something like:

“If the West likes giving things to low-IQ populations, why is it so against giving things to Russia?

This, uh, may be beyond my powers; I’ll give it a try.

  1. Not all gifts are equivalent. Offering housing and social services is much easier than offering an entire country.
  2. Not all recipients are equally deserving. Offering support to poor individuals is much much easier than offering it to an entire country.
  3. Routines matter. There is an established procedure for refugees and such to enter Western countries. Following it led to the current situation. There are also established procedures for one country to get things from another. Russia not following such procedures led to the current situation.

It makes sense to treat these two situations differently, because basically nothing about them is the same.

  1. It's not only material things, but also anti-racism training in police and affirmative action. Often, children of rich blacks are favored over children of poor whites. Housing would be much cheaper provided in those peoples' countries of origin.
  2. It could be hypothisized that BLM rioters aren't deserving, and the only reason they don't blow you with FPV or bomb is that because they don't have an ability. American blacks are quite rich compared to median world person.
  3. it's not about being a refugee (which most of Europe's immigrants are actually not). E.g. wikipedia articles about gypsies and irish travellers look as biased as a brand advertising its shiny new product. Meanwhile they are considering extraditing Ukrainian men back to Ukraine. What do they have for refugees from Russia, lol, restrictions.

What do you mean? Just a few months ago the West went to war on the Middle East, again. Does that look like huge appeasement to you?

It was Israel (which can be argued to be a high-IQ middle eastern country rather than western) that made USA attack, not the West collectively. Also, it could be argued that they perceive Iran as middle or high-IQ country. Also, the West is known for killing brown people in some far away places while worshipping the ones in their countries.

Russian soldiers aren't refugees or immigrants.

How is it ever relevant to my question? I could answer to you comment in a similarly dismissive way -- "russian soldiers aren't in EU or planning to attack it, case closed". Well, in case you don't know, the West made many things which made worse for most Russians, even those who are not involved with Russian regime or war in any way. It's now more difficult to leave Russia. They are restricting crypto for Russians -- so if you're a Russian who doesn't trust their corrupt govenment and wants to store some wealth in crypto, EU wants to prevent that.

I think the question is, why is there no sympathy for Russians wanting to escape conscription when there are so many handouts for US minorities?

One answer may be white guilt over slavery. Since Russians are thought of as white, or maybe white with some asian influences, they are part of the oppressor class and are ineligible for the sympathies of white guilt.

I think the question is, why is there no sympathy for Russians wanting to escape conscription

The current answer to that for most of western Europe is "because there's currently no credible fear of conscription for Russian men". The moment the Russian military actually starts drafting and punishing conscious objectors, I expect full asylum rights for Russian men that can show a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm.

This is already happening, a Russian anti-war activist could apply for asylum pretty much anywhere in the EU.

My old company took in a bunch of Russians fleeing potential draft at the start of the war. One was a bit of a dick but the rest were great workers and are doing well AFAIK.

What ”the West”?

Israel and US starting a war all by themselves is very different from ”the West” going to war.

del (wrong location)

Buddy, I can’t even tell what you’re asking, but I find it vaguely insulting.

Oh, I made at least one typo and probably more grammar errors that I did not even know. Reworded it.

How can you can say?

Good question.

It's still not legible. The question is bizarre. Rephrase the whole thing please.

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