site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   33032 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 19, 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.

10
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The rule that you are not allowed to occupy other countries without a good reason.

The rule is enforced by most powerful countries on this planet, namely, NATO countries who supply Ukraine sufficient weapons so that they can fight against Russian occupying forces.

When did that rule come about, and where is it written?

The rule is enforced by most powerful countries on this planet, namely, NATO countries who supply Ukraine sufficient weapons so that they can fight against Russian occupying forces.

Will this rule be enforced the next time a NATO country feels like occupying another country (probably Russia)? Or is this a rule that only exists for weak, non-NATO countries? If NATO is supplanted by another power, like China, will this rule no longer apply and will countries be allowed to occupy each other again?

You can never predict the future...

And you all are probably better historians than me anyway.

So the 'rules based order' has nothing to do with coherent, consistent law, it's just an excuse to do whatever NATO wants. You must agree that the choice of judge for 'good reasons' is all-important here. Otherwise we'd all be cheering on the SMO like the Economist did in 1999. They wouldn't print the following: 'Bringing the Ukrainians to heel! A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace'.

Onto my second point, what is the point of NATO influencing Ukraine? Since there's no moral/legal reason, there must be a strategic reason. Ukraine has some agricultural land, some gas, the old T-80 production line - yet that's not really a game-changer for anyone. The bulk of the strategic value is in the Black Sea ports, Crimea, gas pipelines, bases relevant to weakening Russia. Ukraine matters more to Russia than it does to the West, in the same way that Mexico or Cuba matters more to the US than to China. Proximity is important. The obvious reason to seek Ukrainian and Georgian membership in NATO is to pressure and surround Russia. It's similarly obvious that Russia is angered by this - they made it abundantly clear that they were very angry about this for years and years.

We should not go around antagonizing major powers with enough nuclear weapons to sweep us all into the dustbin of history, not unless core strategic interests are threatened. We should not have undermined coherent, non-arbitrary ideas like 'don't engage in wars without Security Council consensus' - others can play that game too.

Maybe Russia should have offered Ukraine a more appealing prospect than the EU.

Getting mad because other countries have the right to self determination is an interesting take.

We should not have undermined coherent, non-arbitrary ideas like 'don't engage in wars without Security Council consensus' - others can play that game too.

The country invading a sovereign nation is the one engaging in war.

So the 'rules based order' has nothing to do with coherent, consistent law, it's just an excuse to do whatever NATO wants.

I mean sorta? Might makes right never went away, but the most powerful country generally wants a rules based system most of the time, and so one exists. With just enough exceptions and post hoc rationalization to prevent two nuclear armed powers from coming to direct conflict.

'Do what I say or I'll shoot you' is a rule, but it's not generally what we mean by a rules-based international order, and if America has no justification for it's hegemony other than force, you shouldn't be surprised when others seek to use force to challenge that hegemony.

you shouldn't be surprised when others seek to use force to challenge that hegemony

I'm not, it's exactly what I expect. Then again, I would expect it even if the US had an additional justification, such is the nature of power. Additionally I expect the rules based system to only last as long as US hegemony does.

But I also expect what comes next to be considered much worse, regardless of how much people talk now about America being evil. Despite getting to set the rules (and, admittedly, getting quite a few carve outs in its favor), Pax Americana has been good for basically everyone, save possibly the Russian elite.

I would say that about 30-35 million people that can be added to the global community that is engaged in improving human society is a big deal. It is not only about advancement of technologies because this can be done also in dictatorships like China but about the fabric of the society that is beneficial for all of us. The society is constantly facing different problems (social networks, lockdowns, lack of democracy etc.) that we need more people to deal with these problems in a positively progressive way instead of heavy-handed manner.

The biggest problem with dictatorship is that it is less effective. Putin started a senseless war that hurt Russia a lot. In Western democracies people can also make wrong choices but it is self correcting and it is better in long term development.

China is planning to build their base on Cuba, and Russia increasing their presence there. I guess, a special military operation Bay of Pigs style is totally justified, as it is posited by the so called "realists". And you will support it, right? Ukraine is in the sphere of Russia, Cuba is in the sphere of the US?

https://www.reuters.com/world/china-post-spy-facility-cuba-off-southeastern-us-wsj-2023-06-08/

Yes, its permissible to go in on Cuba. It wouldn't be the first or even the tenth time the US interfered in the sovereignty of Latin American nations.

By meddling in the sphere of influence of another country, you are risking instability and conflict - whether that's Cuba or Ukraine. This is particularly true when it comes to a imperialist nation prone to belligerency, like the United States. China should not unnecessarily antagonize the US like this, and if this leads to war, I think they could be partly responsible.

Of course that isn’t what the poster said. He didn’t say he supported the Russian war. He said NATO antagonized Russia. That doesn’t imply war is the correct response.

The rule that you are not allowed to occupy other countries without a good reason.

The rule is enforced by most powerful countries on this planet, namely, NATO countries who supply Ukraine sufficient weapons so that they can fight against Russian occupying forces.

Are you truly not blind to the absurdity of your statement? ?

"without a good reason" is doing heavy weightlifting here :)

Obviously Russians are sure they also have a good reason, like every invader ever.

I'm becoming partial to the 'non-aggression principle' whose primitive, naive form is espoused by libertarians. (see included image)

/images/16882233458842037.webp

What is absurd in the statement that Ukraine successfully pushed away Russian attack to most of their country?

As I said Ukraine might or might not recover Donbas and/or the Crimea but they successfully defended their capital from falling into Russia's hands. Now with the western help their army has only gotten stronger and I expect that they will liberate at least some of the territories currently occupied by Russians.

As George Soros said back in 2004:

If we re-elect Bush, we are endorsing the Bush doctrine. And then we are off to a vicious circle of escalating violence in the world. And I think, you know, terrorism, counter-terrorism, it's a very scary spectacle to me. If we reject him, then we are effectively rejecting the Bush doctrine. Because he was elected on a platform of a more humble foreign policy. Then we can go back to a more humble foreign policy. And treat this episode as an aberration. We have to pay a heavy price. You know, 100 billion dollars a year in Iraq. We can't get out of that. We mustn't get out of it. But still, we can then regain the confidence of the world, and our rightful place as leaders of the world, working to make the world a better place.

I think it deserves a top-level post in itself: one of the reasons American right started to hate Soros was that he opposed interventionist policies of Bush. Now Tucker and co, who supported invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, declare people like him to be warmongers.

Yeah, sure.

Soros, whose institutes have been at the forefront of funding revolutions since.. well, probably longer than most of posters here have been alive, is for a "more humble foreign policy".

Right.

Even a stopped clock may be right once in a while.

But OK, I'll push back on a more object-level, without sneering. On forefront of which revolutions was he? Velvet revolution? Singing Revolution in Baltic countries? Orange Revolution? Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan? Euromaidan? Rose Revolution in Georgia? Because it's a nice narrative concocted by Russian propaganda, Orban and pro-Ru types, about CIA or Soros, but it just doesn't hold and betrays both ignorance and conspiratorial thinking.

I doubt he was very involved with the '89 revolutions on accounts of pervasive intelligence agency presence in those regimes.

He's given a total of 19 billion $ in grants over the past 30 years.

To quote their webpage:

To help build 'vibrant and inclusive' democracies, whose governments are 'WHOSE GOVERNMENTS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR PEOPLE.'

(Unless, of course, it's the people who are wrong, as when they vote for AfD, Trump, or the Farmer's Party in the Netherlands.

That's money going towards funding professional activists whose values Soros likes.

What are those values ?

Free flow of capital, no borders, de-industrialization, liberation of man from all unchosen bonds, thus consequent societal atomization..

How 'great' these values work out can be seen in the UK, Germany, etc.

Russian propaganda, Orban and pro-Ru types,

You forgot to include Israel in the list of baddies who don't like Soros.

A cancer can attack anyone, even bad people. That doesn't make it good. It's pretty easy to understand why people have reservations about him, for me.

Soros, whose institutes have been at the forefront of funding revolutions since..

Good for him for developing democracy in those countries by funding libraries, scientists and free media. Unfortunately, despite all efforts Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria slide back into corruption and their elites keep pocketing EU money, of course Soros is a good scapegoat for their failures. Gullible people there love this Soros shit, makes them feel smart.

Gullible people fall for bait.

That doesn't make what Soros is doing good.

Gender ideology kills populations. Abolishing criminal justice destroys law and order, a necessary prerequisite for a functioning society.

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