site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   33109 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The allies deliberately bombed civilian areas. Often times using targeted munitions like incendiary bombs on civilian infrastructure with a lot of wooden houses. Most notably in Dresden and Tokyo, though the strategy was widely employed. There was nothing incidental about it, there were no military targets. It was deliberate murder of mostly the elderly, women and children. Incinerated alive in fires that burned so hot and spread so fast that every nerve in those peoples bodies would be torturously burnt until it was physically impossible to feel more pain long before they could receive the grace of suffocating to death.

By the same token 3 million German civilians died in the post war years due to forced relocations, systematic starvation and all other manner of mistreatment. Even after that destabilized period the Soviets would use the forced starvation of German civilians as a tool to coerce the western powers to do their bidding. That's on top of every other inhumane act, like the mass rapes.

You impugned my morals previously. I'll return the favor and say I don't care one bit for moralizing from the likes of you. For what are now demonstrably valid reasons. Maybe if I only cared about jews I could understand your perspective. But even then, the Germans were working towards relocating jews out of Europe prior to the war. Which further validates my point that your premonitions and assumed knowledge of what would have happened if things went differently are simply not applicable.

Even after that destabilized period the Soviets would use the forced starvation of German civilians as a tool to coerce the western powers to do their bidding. That's on top of every other inhumane act, like the mass rapes.

I am not going to defend Soviets at all, and would happily complain about them all day long. I am well aware as fucked up they are, and would consider hammer and sickle in the same way as swastika and consider shocking its open use in many places, including use by some political parties in Western Europe.

The allies deliberately bombed civilian areas.

I know. Still, it was (generally poor) attempt to wage war by murdering civilians. Nazi Germany waged war to be able to mass murder people, including cases where they continued mass murder to detriment of war (usage of scarce resources like railway transportation capacity).

And the Germans were waging war against the jews. By your own morals, presented here, and excuses given for allied bombings of civilian targets taken as valid, there is no issue with Germans murdering jews. As it was just a poor attempt at waging war when they should have focused the effort elsewhere.

Yes, waging war against ethic group with plan to exterminate them is evil and bad. And relatively unusual (not that doing it with plans to enslave everyone, popular in past, was much better).

You've done this a few times now. Said something false or incongruent, then when called out on it, just ran away to a brand new line of reasoning.

The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews. But there certainly were jews in Europe and they certainly did not ally themselves with Hitler. Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?

The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews.

Murdering Jews was one of main goals for starting war. BTW, is you capitalization of Germans and Jews intentional?

Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?

No, but bombing Dresden is more defensible and less evil than genocide for the sake of genocide. Or declaring war at ethic group with plans of murdering it in its entirety.

It was a bad idea, both evil and stupid - there were smarter ways to end war with less civilian casualties and they would use them if they would be less revenge obsessed and bombing obsessed, though it was not blatantly clear at that time due to fog of war. Not entirely sure how much they were aware of that.

Murdering Jews was one of main goals for starting war.

That's not true. Since it underpins the rest of the comment I can understand your misapprehensions.

BTW, is you capitalization of Germans and Jews intentional?

Germany is a country, the Germans are German. They have to own it. Jews on the other hand can be a nation, a religion, a tribe, or some cultural thing depending on what argument suits them best at the time. Half the time if you talk about jews or something jewish people simply deny it exists at all. Until it's decided what they are or want to be there is no reason to capitalize.

That's not true.

Well, it is true.

Until it's decided what they are or want to be there is no reason to capitalize.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

It's not. Do you have any evidence to back that claim? You seem to be going far outside any mainstream.

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