site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33048 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 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.

11
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Interesting post. To me the interesting angle is, as you suggest, that Egypt doesn't want to intervene too much in favor of the SAF because the Gulf Arabs essentially keep Egypt afloat via an eternal line of credit, and they're backing the RSF.

I'd lean towards that the initial seizures of personnel froze any immediate response ability, and while that was resolving the impetus to support / enable foreign diplomatic evacuations and the imminent refugee crisis took priority. At this point, the capital seems undecided, and so the way the conflict will shift within a month is unclear, and so focusing on the refugees streaming towards the border is an easier effort than an unclear intervention.

As with the west as a whole, Egypt is less invested in the man than in what the man-in-charge is willing to do. The RSF is liable to be as willing to keep supporting Egypt vis-a-vis Ethiopia as the SAF.

I'm less convinced about the Gulf Arab argument. There is various reporting that the UAE in particular is connected, but the quality varies, Egypt is funded more by Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi's aren't as clearly involved/interested. That's not saying you can't find connections, but in this part of the world you will always find connections, especially when the RSF was the literal gold dealer.

I have to say that, knowing comparatively little about the situation there, I was surprised that Burhan held against Hemedti as well as he seems to so far, because everyone I knew who worked out there expected that when this blew up the latter would come to power pretty easily and moderately bloodlessly (by regional standards).

Military juntas don't dominate the state for 30+ years by lacking internal espionage services. While the RSF is a rich bunch of militia groups it's still a bunch of militia groups, with poor discipline already on show, and while the SAF may be a poor army it's still an army with heavy equipment and the resources of the state. The RSF seems to be focusing extremely heavily on the capital, and the movement of RSF forces from their usual areas to the capital would have been pretty noticeable.

Once the Hemedti actually failed to take out Burhan in the first 24 hours, most of what we're seeing was predictable.

And reports that Ethiopian cross border forces were defeated- did the RSF or the SAF do that?

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