site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   30969 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On the same day.

  1. China overtakes United States on contribution to research in Nature Index.

  2. China Surpasses Japan as World’s Top Auto Exporter.

Not sure how this decoupling/containment business is going, but it sure doesn't seem to be flying with all colors. I'm not someone who buys into the de-dollarisation thesis, nor do I think the US with its allies (vassals?) is going to be displaced. But neither is China. It'd be nice if US policy would take on a more realistic bent and acknowledge these basic facts instead of pursuing futile policies doomed to failure. We might even have auxiliary benefits such as less need to spend on a bloated military as a consequence. Fat chance, I know, but hope is the last thing that leaves man.

Kamil Galeev, who once hyped China up (and studied there; now seeking career opportunities in Washington), says in his telegram channel:

On the Coming U.S.-China War:

Pamela Crossley, one of the most thorough scholars of the Qing era, quoted British intelligence reports of the First Opium War era about the garrisons of coastal Chinese forts. How many soldiers are there in the garrison?

These estimates look something like this (I quote from memory):

Fortress A: 30,000 Chinese, 1,500 "Tatars" (obviously meaning Manchu-Mongolian "banner" armies).

Fortress B: 15 000 Chinese, 500 "Tatars".

And so on.

«Banner» Tunguso-Mongolian units were a very small part of the Qing forces in South China. Nevertheless, it was the Banner contingents that the British very clearly distinguished from all the others. Because they were the only units that tried to resist at all

For example. The British fleet approaches the fortress of Zhapu (random name). Initiates bombardment. A few hours later, Marines land and go into the breaches made by the artillery. The fortress is taken, and the prisoners are taken. 30 «banner» Manchus, 0 Chinese.

It turns out that both the Manchus and the Chinese are not easy to take prisoners. But for different reasons.

The Manchus are «samurai». They stand to the end – with bows and muskets against rifles. They try not to have to surrender; if taken prisoner, they often try to commit suicide.

The Chinese are smarter and don't wait for the Marines to land. They flee at the bombardment stage.

When planning military operations, the British proceeded from the size of the «banner» contingent of the enemy, not from the size of the larger Chinese contingent. The first (small) figure was real. The second (huge) was imaginary.

Now Galeev is a Tatar supremacist, but I concur about the Chinese. PRC's contribution to the Nature Index is an indictment of the metric.

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