site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   38232 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Part of the reason why I disagree with the "good vs evil" framing is that, once you have framed a conflict in that way, there is no way to end it except the total elimination of the side perceived as "evil". If you want to find peace, eventually you have to see the issue from the perspective of both sides and be able to come up with a solution that acknowledges the physical reality and the concerns of both sides. This is basically impossible if you see the other side as evil. One of the characteristics of most conflicts is that, presuming they didn't end with the total elimination of one side, they tend to end when both sides become weary enough of fighting that they're willing to let go of calling the other side evil and see things from their point of view enough to make some concessions.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make it a bad thing, but personally I see it as a good thing that I can independently come up with an argument similar to what a Russian Nationalist war-backer would use. Now, I certainly don't agree with this fellow when he makes the arguments that total destruction of Ukraine is desirable or that nuclear war is preferable to a perceived Russian loss. I don't agree that it means the "end of Russia as a state and nation", but he does have a little bit of a point in being concerned about how "Big Bad Russia" will be seen in the region after an effective loss to Ukraine and what their longer-term future will be after that.

Does it seem reasonable to be concerned about how effective the Russian nuclear arsenal would be after the poor performance of their more sophisticated forces in Ukraine? From a Western perspective, I definitely don't think we should see it as, well they probably won't work right so Russia is no real threat - far too dangerous to be even a little bit wrong. But from a Russian perspective, if you perceived an existential threat from the Western powers and saw your nuclear arms as the sole trump card guaranteeing your security, how safe would you feel?

If you want to find peace, eventually you have to see the issue from the perspective of both sides and be able to come up with a solution that acknowledges the physical reality and the concerns of both sides.

Or seek the total elimination of the side perceived as evil, as you note in the prior sentence.

Well yeah. But if we decide we're going with that solution, then we validate the allegedly paranoid fears of the Russian Nationalists, including the guy that @DaseindustriesLtd quoted above. If that's the plan, then it's their best move to seek to dominate Ukraine and any other neighbors who they view as uppity at any cost as a necessary defensive buffer against our upcoming attempts to totally eliminate them.

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