site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   26368 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dude. I don’t know what to say.

The basic point I was an am making is that the Cold War is no guide contra to what you said. You haven’t provided any evidence it is.

Now, you could try to argue that a starting premise is wrong- that we don't know Russian thresholds- but that would undermine the argument that we shouldn't send weapons because it would cross nuclear thresholds. The argument presumes an understanding of thresholds. If you don't, then there's no basis to the claim. If you do, then it's just discussing where the threshold is- and so far you've retreated from examples of non-threshold advanced weapon use.

Seems like you are trying to use some weird “debate trick” as opposed to address the substance of the argument. I’m not making the claim that “we shouldn’t send weapons because it would cross nuclear thresholds.”

I’m saying that sending weapons may cross that threshold (likely depending on Ukraine success) and therefore I don’t judge it to be worth the risk.

As for everything else, again it seems to be a weird debate trick as opposed to substance. For example:

You don't provide a causal relationship dynamic to explain how Crimea substantially differ from other areas Russia claimed are categorically the same but didn't nuke over and which thus demonstrate that control loss alone is not a threshold.

I don’t need to. Losing territory that was small and not part of Russia prior to the invasion is different from losing Crimea which has been Russian for most of the last hundred years, is of key strategic value, and has been de facto Russian since 2014. They are of different categories so I would make a reasonable assumption that Russia would react differently. This seems obvious and happy to try to explain the assumptions but it doesn’t feel like a conversation.

Indeed, most of your argument comes down to “your argument relies on assumptions and judgements.” Yes. So does the argument for providing weapons. The question is which one is reasonable. Trying to play this weird gotcha game isn’t really all that interesting.

Dude. I don’t know what to say.

Not surprising.

The basic point I was an am making is that the Cold War is no guide contra to what you said. You haven’t provided any evidence it is.

I have repeatedly provided examples of non-threshold aid types and degrees. You have not provided evidence of an actual threshold. You are the one making a positive claim of a risk to justify a decision- it is on you to validate it.

Seems like you are trying to use some weird “debate trick” as opposed to address the substance of the argument.

You have been avoiding the arguments every reply so far, from the start to here.

I’m not making the claim that “we shouldn’t send weapons because it would cross nuclear thresholds.”

To which you immediately follow with...

I’m saying that sending weapons may cross that threshold (likely depending on Ukraine success) and therefore I don’t judge it to be worth the risk.

Which is an argument from the position that sending weapons would cross the threshold, or else there wouldn't be a risk.

You have not established why anyone should believe Ukrainian success is a credible threshold for Russian nuclear use, particularly when the nominal red line has already been crossed repeatedly already. Rather, you have had to waive away the reasons why the pass crossings didn't actually cross the threshold... which is the point. It's not actually a threshold.

I don’t need to.

You do, if you wish your judgement to be considered grounded in something more than propaganda narratives from a combatant who regularly and routinely engages in nuclear scaremongering for the sake of affecting decisions without reflecting actual nuclear risk.

There is nothing magical about the year of 2014 versus 2022, and it's not even a claim the Russian military make regarding their nuclear use considerations. This goes back to treating the Russians as irrational nuclear actors.

Indeed, most of your argument comes down to “your argument relies on assumptions and judgements.” Yes.

No. Most of my argument comes down that there is a good deal of historical examples and Russian doctrine and nuclear risk mitigation theory that goes against your judgement that conventional weapons equate to nuclear risk, and you are ignoring it while inventing conditions that even the Russians don't claim.

Trying to play this weird gotcha game isn’t really all that interesting.

There's not much of a gotcha to get for a void of justification.

This is just ridiculous. No one knows what a the threshold is because nuclear weapons have only been used twice. But of course that’s the problem when dealing with extreme tail risk. You can’t really rely on history and getting it wrong is terrible. You seem to believe there is a knowable threshold and we need to just figure out what it is. My point is we have zero clue what the threshold is and therefore caution is prudent with respect to Ukraine. You keep saying I’m not responding to your argument but that’s because your argument is absurd — you are asking for me to prove what a threshold is BUT I’m saying that’s the completely wrong question to ask. We have a known unknown and need to make decisions in that context. Sure escalating may not result in nuclear war but it may. It isn’t handwaving to say “we don’t know;” it is the entire argument.

You don’t seem to get that. Instead you seemingly claim “we can look to the Cold War and the current situation of the war to ascertain what the threshold is.” But the problem is pretty much all of your analogs are so easily distinguished as to be beyond the point. That is, we are in sui generis situation meaning we are in known unknown land.

Still avoiding the arguments, I see. No surprise.

Projection.

Indeed you are. It was kind of a point you skipped.

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