site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29839 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hanania

Not sure how it generalizes but I read single thing written by Hanania. It was on topic that I know relatively well and what Hanania wrote was atrociously offensively bad take and extreme misinterpretation of reality.

What article was that?

People like to say things like this about Hanania on Twitter, probably because he's kind of obnoxious, and never seem to back it up, which you can see even in this thread. It's suspiciously like people who claim "The Bell Curve" has been debunked, but then never provide specific arguments beyond nitpicking.

While he wants to avoid the specific example he had in mind, do_something did give an example that's pretty humiliating for Hanania.

He found a single tweet and nitpicked it to death. Russia has not conquered Ukraine in a year and a half. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany. Because Hanania is bad and dumb? Because they're going to start a nuclear war for no reason?

He found a single tweet and nitpicked it to death.

Note that I was not looking for dumb comment, I commented on the first one I found.

I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany.

"military threat" is not the same as "will definitely invade"

Also https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/144937?context=8#context - someone not aware that nuclear-armed ICBM have military use, that cannot be fully neutered by currently existing weapons and defence systems, should not comment on modern warfare.

He avoided giving the one he had in mind for purposes of anonymity.

I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe they are a serious threat to Poland and Germany. Because Hanania is bad and dumb? Because they're going to start a nuclear war for no reason?

We're supposed to believe that military strength is not a 1:1 reflection of a country's GDP, and that ICBMs are a military threat. That they have no reason to use them was not a part of Hanania's argument.

Not the one you asked, and I don't recall the specific articles as all three were over a year ago, but I recall experiencing a similar reaction to mutiple other things he's written. One was something regarding the history of censorship, another was about foreign policy/defense procurement with regards to NATO, and another involved machine learning. In all three cases he managed to demonstrate both an ignorance of history, and a general lack of understanding of the things he was attempting describe.

This is setting aside the fact that his online persona tends to read as some sort of caricature. It's like someone is trying to resurrect Stephen Colbert's old Daily Show act, but without Colbert's insight or familiarity with the source material.

One was something regarding the history of censorship, another was about foreign policy/defense procurement with regards to NATO, and another involved machine learning. In all three cases he managed to demonstrate both an ignorance of history, and a general lack of understanding of the things he was attempting describe.

Can you find these?

Can you?

replied in https://www.themotte.org/post/695/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/144860?context=8#context (it grown overly large to repeat it)

Don't leave it at that! What was the topic, what was the take, and how was it wrong?

Sadly I commented about it elsewhere under my real name so prefer to remain vague about it :(

But I searched <Richard Hanania Poland> (to have less specific topic) and found this gem as the first match: https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1506652611851685889

Poland is 4 times wealthier than Ukraine with similar population. Germany is 12 times wealthier with twice the population.

This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all.

They could threaten the Baltics but that's the theoretical limit.

where he

(1) compares wealth of country fighting but not strictly winning with Russia and implies that larger wealth would be definitely enough to crush Russia so strongly that it would not be a military threat (what is nonsense: maybe ratio is 20 or 50 or 100)

(2) forgets that it is not computer game where wealth directly translates to military power (see his own example, Germany - is he really claiming that German military is 12 times more powerful than Ukrainian one?)

(3) forgets that being military nuisance and threat is achievable with vastly lower expense if you focus on it, as Russia did (see also North Korea)

(3b) Russia has ICBMs and nukes. Entity having ICBMs and nukes is a military threat, potential targets being wealthy are not causing nuclear weapons to stop working.

Even if Europe would spend the same share of money and effort on military as Russia does, then Russia still would be a military threat (unless 100% effective anti-ICBM and anti-cruise missile systems would be created and deployed to cover entire Europe, which is dubious)

(3c) Russia still has enormous piles of weaponry and ability to produce more

(4) Has "This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all." and directly after that has "They could threaten the Baltics" which are part of Europe.

(5) Wait, is he claiming that Russia is unable to threaten Ukraine? Which is decidedly in Europe (lets assume he means EU by "Europe" to be charitable in interpreting it).

Also, claim that Ukraine per capita is only 6 times less wealthier than Germany is suspect to me. It looks like comparison of GDP with PPP adjustment (raw GDP has 11 times difference). But it is not wealth, that is just income. Accumulated income (=wealth) of Germany is much greater than he claims. What ironically makes his justification weaker than in reality.

Overall, not as egregious or problematic as other case that soured me on him - but not something that wants to me read his book, on topic where I am less able to spot suspect claims.

Sadly I commented about it elsewhere under my real name so prefer to remain vague about it :(

That's a shame, but I understand.

(2) forgets that it is not computer game where wealth directly translates to military power (see his own example, Germany - is he really claiming that German military is 12 times more powerful than Ukrainian one?)

This is an interesting one, because on hand yeah, that's bad, but on the other GDP fetishism is a real problem among our intellectual classes. I almost don't want to blame him for taking prevailing theories at face value.

That part alone would be less problematic but claiming

This should end the idea that Russia is a military threat to "Europe" once and for all.

about country that has nukes is hilarious. And claiming that Ukraine and Baltics are not in Europe.

(noone is obligated to post geopolitic hot takes on Twitter - but if he is doing them I am happy to judge him based on that)

(also, there is reason why I am not posting here under my real name. I post my professional stuff separately in way that is not mingled with posts on topics where I do not have 20+ year of expert knowledge)

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