site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27686 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Russia executing own retreating soldiers, US says

Russia is executing soldiers who try to retreat from a bloody offensive in eastern Ukraine, the White House has said. According to the US, some of the casualties suffered by Russia near Avdiivka were "on the orders of their own leaders".

Russian and Ukrainian troops have been locked into a fierce battle for the frontline town since mid-October. Russia is thought to have suffered "significant" losses in this time. Ukrainian estimates put the number of Russian casualties in Avdiivka at 5,000, while the US says that Russia lost "at least" 125 armoured vehicles and more than a battalion's worth of equipment.

Do you believe the primary claim in this article (from the Pentagon)? If so, or if not, why? If you think the claim is a lie, do you think it originates with American or Ukrainian propagandists. If you think the claim is true, do you think Russia’s actions are likely to have a positive or negative effect on Russian troop morale moving forward?

I’m interested in how our prejudices and priors developed over the last year and half of this war - and more generally - affect our judgment when we hear stories reporting by one side like this. What would it take for you to believe or disbelieve the claim?

First thought: that WH quote would describe blue-on-blue incidents like ordering an artillery strike in an occupied zone. Very possible, as the Brits can attest, though it would be dishonest to frame it as an execution.

After actually reading the link: wow, there’s no further substance. Just additional statements from a Ukrainian official, which merit a huge shaker of salt. At the bottom we get some actual figures about foreign aid. Not that it has anything to do with the initial claim!

Hearsay without a link to the alleged statement ought to be a tort. Journalistic malpractice.

Edit: right, I feel like I should say that I do find the prospect of Russia doing actual, personal executions plausible. Military discipline can get extreme fast and I don’t think that’s outside the Overton window.

You don't even need blue-on-blue for the actual quote as presented. The first part isn't even part but to be charitable there may be a paraphrase: "[some of the casualties suffered by Russia near Avdiivka were] on the orders of their own leaders." That can just as easily be ordering troops into a situation where you know they are going to take casualties.

You don’t hate journalists enough. You think you do but you don’t.

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