site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   28369 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 29, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Historical injustice depends a lot on where you start the clock.

I'll try to keep this mostly general, because much of history is under debate, especially about culture war issues, and litigating ancient history for current politics is a fool's game (if potentially entertaining). This phenomenon is not relegated to any particular side, it is rather the method by which fact and fiction become myth. It is how partially-understood history becomes dogma, and drives our current politics and society.

The history of humanity is a history of injustice, conflict and strife. When we look to history to explain our modern world and inform our modern politics, much of the divide between us can be discerned by where we start our "clocks". One notices that, for instance, in the Jewish/Palestinian arguments, one side likes to start the clock in the 1970s and one starts it in the 1930s. Real history, of course, is not divided artificially. Every conflict leads to the next, every injustice to the next. Progress happens on a long enough timeline, but there are enough reverses along the way to outlive any of us.

This is something to watch in ourselves, as much as in others. To think about where we're starting the clock, and whether something important might have happened before that to produce that situation.

To take a silly hobby-horse theory/hot take of mine as example, I think the british fought on the right side of WW2, but the wrong side of WW1. I think the historical context WW2 is completely dependent on WW1, and that of WW1 is inextricable from the Franco-Prussian war, the countries, borders and alliances it produced, and thus the clock should start in 1870 rather than 1913. Anyone who starts the clock in 1913 is a Francophile.

One of my favorite hobby horses: Start the "Colonialism" clock in 1492 to claim European colonization of the Americas was wrong, but start it in 1452 and Istanbul should be part of Greece (or rather Greece should be ruled from Constantinople).

Greece should be ruled from Constantinople

Sounds fair and reasonable

Quite so. Who was colonizing who was pretty different only fifty years before, there was still a muslim caliphate in Spain then, and the Ottomans were invading Hungary, and had colonized most of the Balkans.

Honestly with Asian history there's a ton of hilarity if you expand the 'who's colonizing who' slightly further.

Most of Vietnam as we know it was carved out less than 500 years ago from a bunch of locals who were subjugated, eradicated and generally mollywhopped but ask them and they've been in charge since time immemorial.

I think the british fought on the right side of WW2, but the wrong side of WW1.

I can see the claim that, say, Russia or Serbia bears the blame for WWI, that Austria was in the right, and even that Germany’s actions are understandable(although not praiseworthy) given the context. I can see assigning some blame to France.

What I can’t wrap my mind around is the idea that Britain was in the wrong- whether you have central powers sentiment or not, responding to an ally in time of need is almost definitionally a just war. It seems like Britain was the only major belligerent that didn’t do anything wrong.

I didn't mean that Britain was exclusively at fault at all. It's great-power realpolitik for everyone. I just meant that the state of play in 1913 was far more ambiguous than the way in which we see it after WW2.

My reading of the immediate run up in 1913 was that of the great powers it was Russia who precipitated the expansion of the war with less justification than anyone else. Without Russia backing the Serbs without any formal alliance or responsibility, Germany doesn't enter into it, France doesn't enter into it, and neither does anyone else. Of course, Serbia is really the culprit, but no one cares enough about the Balkans to hate them for it.

I'm not really a fan of the argument, but it's Niall Ferguson's. The claim is that Germany had already stopped its naval buildup and didn't have an army big enough to really conquer Europe, so they probably just wanted to neutralize France and Belgium to stave off a two-front war, then withdraw under some kind of settlement. The precedent is the 1871 Franco-Prussian War where Britain stayed out (other than diplomatically) and this basically happened, with Germany withdrawing and only taking Alsace-Lorraine. Supposedly internal British documents show they didn't really take the Belgium Treaty seriously so their main motivation was crushing the eternal Kraut, and thus turned a small conflict into a huge one.

You can kinda squint and see it, but I'm not really a fan of counterfactual arguments that are just 90% conjecture, nor of blaming fights on anyone other than the guy who started them. (I haven't read the full book so the argument may be stronger than I'm portraying).

For not having an army big enough to 'really' conquer Europe, they sure did come pretty close more than once during WWI.

The precedent is the 1871 Franco-Prussian War where Britain stayed out (other than diplomatically) and this basically happened, with Germany withdrawing and only taking Alsace-Lorraine.

That was 1871. Wilhelmine Germany was not embarrassed about their ambition to dominate Europe, and they deliberately worked to that end.

Wilhelmine Germany was not embarrassed about their ambition to dominate Europe, and they deliberately worked to that end.

And that's why the war started smack in the middle of Bava...................Kosovo.

1: Serbian-organized terrorists kill Austrian heir

2: Austrians demand massive concessions, on threat of invasion, which I think is understandable enough (in realpolitik terms). This is essentially what the US did with Afghanistan.

3: The Russians jump in with zero stake or justification other than Pan-slav ideology.

4: Germany tells Austria to go ahead, they got their back

5: France jumps in, although their treaty with Russia doesn't require it, as Russia is not defending itself.

6: Now facing a two-front war, Germany loses the game of chicken and starts fighting.

7: Britain looks at all that and goes with France and the Russians.

The result of the war will be a communist dictatorship in Russia, a fascist one in Germany, another world war, and a seventy-year cold war between the victors. Counterfactuals are impossible, but Nicky 2 is a strong contender for dumbest world power leader of all time.

Of course Germany wants to dominate Europe, so does France and everyone else. They do it with banks rather than armies now, which is better for everyone, but still resented.

Sure, it's understandable why the Austrians demanded those concessions - they anticipated that the Serbians would be unwilling to comply or unable to within the very small timeframe offered, which would justify a military invasion. As you say, it's very understandable realpolitik - which is to say, lies and disregard for the weak.

(I don't think this is really that similar to Afghanistan. The AH interest in Serbia and the Balkans was long-running, part of a grander expansionist policy. But Afghanistan did not fit all that well into American foreign policy. If anything, it has interfered with and muddled long-term State Department strategy.)

The Russians had just as much stake in the Balkans as the Austro-Hungarians did - it was there, and they wanted it for themselves.

I don't see how Germany having Austria's back is defensible and France having Russia's back is not. Fact is it's just moronic not to help your allies. Was France supposed to just twiddle their thumbs while the Germans defeated their ally, knowing that they would soon be next? This is always a problem with alliances and commitments - those that you commit yourself to alliance with might take advantage of your reliance on them to do what they wish. Of course, this was not a problem for Germany and Austria.

Germany wanted a general war in 1914. Germany's guarantee to Austria was intended to increase the likelihood of war. They were ready for war and confident of victory. France and Russia were not. In addition, many in Germany feared that Russia would become an unbeatable foe if their army was successfully modernized. German strategy sought to knock the French out of the war quickly in a repeat of 1870, and then settle in for a longer and more grueling conflict against the Russians.

The result of the war will be a communist dictatorship in Russia, a fascist one in Germany, another world war, and a seventy-year cold war between the victors.

All of which can be laid at the feet of the German militarists who sought in 1914 to dominate Europe through force of arms. The fact is that it was they who loosed Lenin on Russia. The fascists who arose in Germany were no aberration, for they were cut from the same cloth as the Prussian militarists who were the driving force in 1914. Had the Germans simply accepted the status quo in 1914, all these things and more could have been averted. Instead, they chose escalation. They chose to believe that war was inevitable, and made it thus. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Germany’s army at the start was smaller than France or Russia’s, so sustaining occupation across Europe probably would have been a stretch. The original German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg seemingly tried to avoid escalation, held off initiating German mobilization until after Russia had started first, and tried to trade leaving France and Belgium’s borders unchanged if Britain stayed out.

Like I said though, I’m not really a fan of the argument.

If you are referring to the claim that Britain only got involved to defend Belgium, that is literally just British propaganda. They wanted to get involved from the very start and the Belgium thing was a convenient excuse.

The public and political mood was ambivalent until the invasion of Belgium. The British were horrified by the Sarajevo assassination and inclined to see AH's actions as justified.

Yes, Britain probably had anti-Germany as more of a motive for intervention than genuine support for Belgium. But reacting to the invasion was grounds for war according to anyone who isn’t a pacifist.

To put it another way, US aid for Ukraine is predicated more on the fact that it’s being shot at Russia than on concern for Ukrainian sovereignty, but it’s certainly justified morally because defending Ukrainian sovereignty is a good moral ground for war, even if it doesn’t happen to be one we care very much about.

I think you've chosen a very interesting place to stop your chain of logic here, not examining why Britain "wanted to get involved from the very start". Given that Britains war aims were essentially to keep the continent pretty much as it was before the war and preserve the balance of power in Europe, it is in fact accurate to say that Britain chose to use the excuse of maintaining Belgian independence in order to join the war in support of Britains true goal of supporting Belgian independence.

Given that Britains war aims were essentially to keep the continent pretty much as it was before the war and preserve the balance of power in Europe

"We want Austria-Hungary to keep oppressing everyone because the status quo is profitable to our top-hat class" is not exactly my definition of Just War.

I think building on your WW1 and WW2 takes, whenever someone is discussing what you should do with a hostile third party everyone preaching “not my business” is routinely reminded of “peace in our time.” But that is once again starting the clock in the 1930s. Maybe if for example the US had stayed out of WWI it would not have been quite the decisive victory for the allies and thus the terms might have been not as bad for Germany. With less bad terms, maybe Hitler never rises to power and thus we never encounter “peace in our time” rhetoric.

It is a counter factual but it isn’t obviously wrong and depends on as you put it when you start the clock.

Maybe if for example the US had stayed out of WWI it would not have been quite the decisive victory for the allies and thus the terms might have been not as bad for Germany. With less bad terms, maybe Hitler never rises to power and thus we never encounter “peace in our time” rhetoric.

It's a fairly persistent narrative that it was the harsh terms of the treaty of versailles that lead to the second world war, but it's always struck me as a load of rubbish. If your enemy is still strong enough to make another serious go of invading you a generation after you have decisively defeated them, it's an argument that you were not thorough enough in their hobbling, not the reverse. You don't hear many people saying that the Romans were in danger of the hurt feelings of the Carthaginians causing another great war when they made their desert and called it peace.

The problem with the post-WW1 peace was that it did not change the fundemental conditions that lead to the outbreak of WW1. It left a Germany that was humiliated and embittered, but still in pretty much the same place it was before the war. If your aim is to prevent the rise of Hitler and WW2, you need to disarm its military at the end of the war, rather than letting them go home under arms, occupy the country and then dissolve Germany as a nation. Of course I'm referring to the nation as a political entity and not advocating for some sort of mass disintegration of all Germans, but I think having Germany forcibly broken up into a series of smaller nations is a fair price to pay for starting the greatest war in history and then making the rather inadvisable decision of losing it.

I would say that WW2 was a consequence of firstly, that special brand of German pig-headedness that convinces them that everything must be done the German way. And secondly, a dangerous cocktail of American softness mixed with the bitterness of two empires that had just spent the lives of a generation of their men (and a whole lot of money) with very little to show for it.

Somewhat tangential to this point, I'm not typically given to writing great long essays for the internet, but I do feel that one day I will be compelled to research and write a great screed about the US and it's approach to international relations and diplomacy. I'm thinking of opening it with "American diplomats and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race".

Well, it seems you probably want one or the other. But the Romans didn’t negotiate an end with Carthage; they utterly destroyed them because they beat their armies in toto.

But yes, it would’ve been better if there was less financial penalties on Germany and more military punishments.

It's a fairly persistent narrative that it was the harsh terms of the treaty of versailles that lead to the second world war, but it's always struck me as a load of rubbish.

Agreed, it certainly compares well with the treaty the same Germans inflicted on their defeated enemies. The impact of Versailles is often overstated imo, the reparations requirements were downgraded several times in the Dawes Plan and Young Plan, Germany frequently just didn't pay, and ultimately only ever delivered about 12% of what it owed. Reparations certainly weren't an impediment to rearmament, on which much many times more money was spent, and broadly the German economy had been improving in the decade before Hitler's rise, especially in inflation. Things got much worse right before he came to power, but this was due to the Great Depresion, not Versailles.

deleted

One thing I've contemplated about the approach to estimating historical grievances that must be repaid later on by the nominal 'victor' at the time is that it would seemingly create some unfortunate game-theoretic implications when engaging in a particular conflict.

If you wage a successful campaign of complete annihilation/genocide, leaving behind no survivors to later complain about your past misdeeds, then you have less risk of ever being made to acknowledge or have to compensate for said annihilation. So any time you engage in conflict, you should probably go for broke and try to completely eliminate the opponent from the gene pool, assuming you can define them tightly enough to do so.

If you seize the land out from under someone, and kill any and every person who might claim to be the rightful beneficiary of the land, you're effectively shoring up your own claim to the land such that nobody can really claim to have a morally superior right to it than you do, if only because nobody alive can trace their lineage to someone who used to own the land. Granted you may have to kill thousands upon thousands of people, but if the alternative is you end up being forced to return the land or pay massive compensation decades down the line...

Or try to reduce it to an absurd hypothetical: let us say that there is particular [minority group] that experienced hundreds of years of oppression and suffering inflicted by others, and then a systematic campaign to exterminate them down to the last man. This campaign failed about 100 years back, but it came so close to succeeding that in the present there is only one (1) surviving descendant traceable to that group. Rough estimates for the rightful compensation for the pain and suffering inflicted on these peoples is 1 trillion dollars. Is it somehow appropriate to award that full amount to this one surviving descendant, thereby rendering them the richest person on the planet, by far?

Would it be bad to just wait another 50 years until that person dies with no heirs and consider the debt 'extinguished?'

If nobody survives who could seemingly make a claim for reparations, then what possible method could you use to impose accountability in the present?

Practically speaking your odds of success in going the full genocide route are likely low enough that this 'strategy' becomes VERY high risk/high reward, at best. But man, ethics seem to get spotty in these "all or nothing" scenarios, where you carry the full moral blame and consequences for your act if anyone survives, whereas if your evil plan succeeds in full you're home free.

The other thing to contemplate is the question of why misdeeds/debts should be carried forward to be paid back later by one's descendants, whilst positive achievements/credits aren't?

Is there really no historical grievance if the victims are extinct?

I don't think that's enough. Historical grievances aren't just raised by the aggrieved party. They are raised by any party that benefits from saying "what we did in the past was vile".

Furthermore, there's a reason the full genocide route doesn't happen, and that's because the counterforce already exists in the past. The memetic counterforce that loses the war also sees itself as an aggrieved party, and continues its resistance, regardless to whether a genocide of the most central victims is successful.

A pure and complete genocide needs to be a pure and complete genocide not of the aggrieved party per se, but of the memetic counterforce.

This is similar to ResoluteRaven saying "You don't need to kill all of them, you just need to thoroughly assimilate them"

To put it in logical terms, ResoluteRaven is saying "Genocide is not necessary to prevent historical grievence, Assimilation is sufficient." And I am making the stronger claim, "Genocide is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent historical grievence. Assimilation is both necessary and sufficient."

Though my definition of Assimilation here is something like 'memetic genocide' of which actual genocide may be a component. Assimilation doesn't have to be nice to be game theoretically functional.

The other thing to contemplate is the question of why misdeeds/debts should be carried forward to be paid back later by one's descendants, whilst positive achievements/credits aren't?

Positive achievements usually benefit the achiever's group primarily, and other groups only incidentally. Do we all still owe the British for sparking off the industrial revolution? Maybe we do, but then again history's largest empire is a fairly decent reward too. Misdeeds on the other hand are felt directly, they motivate people to demand redress far more than an Italian would be motivated to ask for compensation for his people's contributions to architecture.

There are cases where the credits of one group are carried over across generations, the memory of the Choctaw Indians donating money to Irish famine relief in the 1847 was the basis for a GoFundMe campaign to solicit a fairly successful fundraising campaign for COVID relief in 2020.

Positive achievements usually benefit the achiever's group primarily, and other groups only incidentally.

On the other hand, the benefits to the other groups might be outsized in proportion to the conditions they'd have found themselves in otherwise.

Being more direct, if you were the descendant of an extremely primitive tribe living on an isolated island where previously the only technology was sharpened sticks/rocks, fire, and MAYBE mud huts, and a colonial power arrived on the island, murdered half of your village, enslaved the other half for one hundred years, eventually released them from slavery and built a 'proper' society with modern technology for you to live in...

Well how does it balance out? If they had never arrived you, as a descendant, would be living in the same primitive conditions as before. Now you've got modern conveniences and a developed economy and you, personally, were never enslaved in the process.

So the benefit conferred on YOU, personally, is like a 100x increase in the standard of living than what you would have likely experienced otherwise, in exchange for a few generations of ancestors suffering greatly. So from the perspective of you, as an individual, do you inherit both the benefits of an advanced civilization AND the penalties of a history of oppression? How does that balance out in terms of what you're 'owed' in the present?

So from the perspective of you, as an individual, do you inherit both the benefits of an advanced civilization AND the penalties of a history of oppression? How does that balance out in terms of what you're 'owed' in the present?

Thinking more on this it's clear that evaluating how things 'balance out' has a utilitarian presumption behind it, whereas I think the most plausible case for treating historical grievances with importance takes a more traditional view of specific 'crimes' commited which demand redress (greivances based on systemic inequalities where there's no obvious unjust act are a more recent innovation). So, as would be the case with any crime, you demand redress for the specific wrongs done and ignore the question of whether you'd be better or worse off in the counterfactual. Breaking into someone's house is still breaking into someone's house even if you leave a bag of money in their living room.

The most straightforward cases of this in history are the demanding of an official apology, the return of titles, legal rights, or land. The discourse of monetary reparations already veers too far into the murky waters of utilitarian calculations to be workable in my opinion.

Hence why I think there is a valid case to be made for agreeing to some specific number that will suffice to settle the issue once and for all.

Something that is more than a mere symbolic amount but also acknowledges that the outcome wasn't solely a harm or detriment in the long run.

But these are the sort of discussions that would need to take place in the process. Because returning you to the status quo ante would be to tear down all the trappings of advanced society from your island and leaving you behind with your village and sharpened rocks and sticks and fire.

So any time you engage in conflict, you should probably go for broke and try to completely eliminate the opponent from the gene pool

You don't need to kill all of them, you just need to thoroughly assimilate them (although this usually involves killing a lot of them). This could be thought of as removing them from the meme pool, I suppose. Modern French people are mostly descended from Gauls who were massacred and enslaved by the Romans, yet Napoleon's armies proudly fought beneath the Roman eagle and he adopted the titles of Consul and Emperor for himself. The same goes for Arab nationalists from Egypt, or Italian and German nationalists from any of the dozens of formerly independent states that once occupied the modern territory of those countries.

And of course if the progressive dream of "browning America" were to succeed and we became a completely ethnically and racially homogenous society (a surprisingly trad vision of the future if you think about it), then it would be impossible for any one group to pay reparations to another because we would all be descended from both the perpetrators and the victims of whatever historical atrocity was being adjudicated. Not that I expect us to get much farther than Latin America along the path of race-mixing, and they still have distinguishable groups with lingering grievances.

The other thing to contemplate is the question of why misdeeds/debts should be carried forward to be paid back later by one's descendants, whilst positive achievements/credits aren't?

Because the misdeeds and debts are carried forward to allow deconstruction of the culture of your target, so you can destroy their narratives, make them uncertain of how to act, deprive them of confidence and ideas.

Reminding people of praiseworthy past achievements wouldn't help.

Critical theory was created by people who wanted to change society in accordance with their ideas.

That's all there is to it. (added later: They were not even making any secrets about it either - they openly said as much)

If certain intellectuals are to be believed, of whom most prominent one is now James Lindsay, people using 'critical theory' do not even have a normative vision - they believe that by criticizing that what exists endlessly, a more just synthesis just somehow happens to arise.

EDIT:

added a clarification

Right, I've asked this question quite a few times of the grievance studies/critical theory types and there's no satisfying answer to date.

"Why is it that people living now can be held accountable for negative actions taken by their relatively distant ancestors... but also cannot be permitted to take pride or credit for positive achievements of those same ancestors?"

It is a strange theory that allows blame to propagate forward through time and across generational gaps to currently-living descendants and yet considers the preservation of familial wealth and status across generational gaps to be unjustified.

Seems like any grounds you use to discard the one can likely be used to discard the other as well.

deleted

This has pretty harrowing implications like you said.

Machiavelli noticed this some time ago.

i dont want to hear about the holocaust again when stuff like this is part of their religion. holocaust might have been the most justified genocide in history. compared to a typical genocide, the people killed were foreign to the lands that they were killed in, had refused to assimilate for 2000 years into the society's that they were making money off of, and would have done the same thing a long time ago had the roles been reversed.

Wishing death on your outgroup seems to be your routine, for which you've been banned repeatedly and you keep coming back to do it.

You also keep changing the groups you think deserve to die. First it's Catholics, then it's white nationalists, then it's Jews.

Maybe you're just an equal-opportunity hater, but I think you're a troll. Banned. Duration TBD, but probably permanent.

That's an interesting hypothetical. I doubt Jews would consider them true Amalekites--having the right DNA seems much less relevant, from both a scriptural and common-sense standpoint, than actually being descended from them. Still, say we discovered some long-lost Amalekites who were unambiguously descended from them. I can't imagine they would do anything but define the problem away somehow.

I think these are good points, but we run into a similar issue of incentives if there are not long term repercussions either. If we have a statute of limitations that nobody ever pays for their misdeeds, or any misdeeds that are done don't have to be paid if more than 50 years have passed, then there are incentives to destroy your rivals, steal their stuff, pass it on to your descendants, and then maintain control and prevent more sympathetic and guilt-feeling people from gaining power until the clock runs out.

I think the optimal incentive aligning solution might be something like a global penalty pool. Most of the damage done by terrible atrocities is done to people who die and thus cannot be compensated. And the most terrible damage will be when entire families are wiped out together, meaning the only people who could be compensated are more distant relatives, and the more complete the genocide the fewer legitimate surviving victims. So... make them pay anyway, it doesn't matter who they pay. We have a central pool, wrong-doers are forced to pay penalties into it proportional to the actual damages (including what is owed to dead people), and whatever portion of the money is damages to actually surviving people or their recent descendants can go to them, while money for dead people or people from long long ago can be used for humanitarian aid or something.

Obviously there are still incentive issues with whoever is in control of assigning penalties and determining how the money gets spent, but it solves the issue of rewarding victims proportional to how few of them remain. I am very very strongly opposed to being forced to pay reparations to people of certain races because multiple centuries ago people who shared their skin color were oppressed by people who share my skin color (but neither were our direct ancestors). But I don't think I would mind having some of my tax money go into a global pool for humanitarian aid, if it was spent effectively on people who actually needed it. I'll consider that charity.

I don't think many people are meaningfully able to notice a benefit that won't exist for 50 years, nor are willing to put up with repercussions (severe ones) that will last for 49, so I think 50 is a good line there.

I definitely believe in adverse possession for lands held that long.

Not everyone has to care, just enough people to make an impact, and people in power. People care about passing on wealth to their grandchildren, people care about the honor and fame that their name will carry in future generations. Their legacy. Not everyone cares, but some do.

Having something like "if you conquer this land you and your children and your grandchildren will be wealthy for generations to come, and your grandchildren will venerate you as heroes they are proud of" appeals to a lot of people. Having something like "if you conquer this land then you and your children will be wealthy for a few decades and the international community will watch your country like a hawk until they eventually find a weakness and then reconquer the land, bankrupt your grandchildren, and then indoctrinate all of your great grandchildren into cursing your name in schools" seems like a disincentive. It's a weird game theory thing, like mutually assured destruction, because obviously it's a terrible thing to actually do to someone, and the grandchildren did nothing wrong and don't deserve to be punished, but theoretically if the threat is credible (I'm not sure how it could be if it's happening more than 50 years in the future) then it would act as a deterrent that rarely needs to be actually used.

I think these are good points, but we run into a similar issue of incentives if there are not long term repercussions either.

Yes, and this gets into why belief in an all-seeing, all knowing, eternal God might in fact be an adaptive and helpful thing from a very broad civilizational standpoint. If you believe that some higher power is keeping a ledger of every deed and is capable of inflicting punishment upon you in this world or, possibly, eternally in the next world and WILL DO SO, then you suddenly DO have fear of long-term repercussions even if you manage to destroy every single earthly enemy you have.

Granted, you can have religions that are ambivalent to or even encourage the slaying of rivals, but the point here is that having a belief in a higher power is potentially a force for mediating the tendency to abuse your own power.

It's kind of the whole issue of human nature: what WON'T we do if we believed we could get away with it?

If we have a statute of limitations that nobody ever pays for their misdeeds, or any misdeeds that are done don't have to be paid if more than 50 years have passed, then there are incentives to destroy your rivals, steal their stuff, pass it on to your descendants, and then maintain control and prevent more sympathetic and guilt-feeling people from gaining power until the clock runs out.

I would argue that, absent the all-seeing, vengeful god posited above, this is ALREADY the incentive. Under current circumstances, if you ever find yourself with the power to utterly crush any rivals to your control of [resource], you should do so without hesitation.

It's just very hard to get to such a position given the current balance of power in the world.

I'm somewhat of two minds about the whole thing, but I think my belief really comes down to:

A. You can't punish OR reimburse the dead.

B. You CAN try to prevent future harms from occurring.

C. If you can't return things to the status quo ante or close to it, then setting some number which the survivors agree is acceptable to settle the matter for all time is the only real way forward.

D. But calculating this number should account for the both negative AND positive events experienced by the survivors.

And the most terrible damage will be when entire families are wiped out together, meaning the only people who could be compensated are more distant relatives, and the more complete the genocide the fewer legitimate surviving victims. So... make them pay anyway, it doesn't matter who they pay. We have a central pool, wrong-doers are forced to pay penalties into it proportional to the actual damages (including what is owed to dead people), and whatever portion of the money is damages to actually surviving people or their recent descendants can go to them, while money for dead people or people from long long ago can be used for humanitarian aid or something.

You're hitting on something close to the idea of 'genocide insurance' (isomorphic to life insurance, only instead of for one person, for an entire identifiable ethnic group.) which basically takes action on behalf of the genocided group to wreak some kind of vengeance so as to ensure there are repercussions to the attacker if there can't be compensation to the victims.

But the issue as it stands is once you have some massive fund or stockpile of wealth as part of this penalty pool there's now a meta-game about seeking control of or access to the wealth and determine under what conditions is it distributed.

B. You CAN try to prevent future harms from occurring.

This is known as creating future harms.

Example: everything that was done in the years 2020-2022, ostensibly to protect public health

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