site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26677 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

This afternoon, an Algerian man who'd been resident in Ireland for years approached a crèche in the Dublin city centre and stabbed a teacher and several children, all of whom have been hospitalised. A man intervened and tackled him to the ground (I've heard unconfirmed reports that he was Brazilian, making this something of a wash from an anti-immigration perspective).

In a remarkable display of striking while the iron is hot, an anti-immigrant group organised a protest outside the Dáil (lower house of parliament) later this afternoon. Protesters clashed with police officers at the scene of the crime. Before long it escalated into a full-scale riot, the likes of which I've never seen before in Dublin. A bus was set on fire, as was at least one police car and a Luas (the light rail system serving Dublin). A Holiday Inn was set on fire. Shops have been smashed up and looted. I had to get a taxi home as the public transport has been suspended. Walking through the streets is eerie, they're largely empty aside from riot cops carrying riot shields very forcefully redirecting me. Helicopters are still circling overhead.

My gut feeling is that this is primarily the work of opportunistic scumbags rioting for the fun of it, for which a fairly small protest which got out of hand was merely the catalyst. On the other hand, I have heard a lot about the alleged "rise of the far right" in Ireland over the course of the last few years, and the fact that it happened so soon after Geert Wilders' election is certainly odd timing.

EDIT: See also @Tollund_Man4's more detailed write-up in the transnational thread.

On the other hand, I have heard a lot about the alleged "rise of the far right" in Ireland over the course of the last few years, and the fact that it happened so soon after Geert Wilders' election is certainly odd timing.

I think there are a few factors.

A big one is the CIA and State Department. They've traditionally viewed right wing parties in Europe as the enemy, and made efforts to keep them from winning. However they've been incredibly distracted the last few years by the Afghanistan withdrawal, China, and focussing on Ukraine / Russia as well as neighbouring countries in Eastern Europe. Note that the right wing party in Poland just lost.

Pro-Hamas protests have brought longstanding issues with integration of people from poor Muslim countries to the forefront. The excuse from the internationalist types has always been that they just need time, but after 20 years of hearing that people can see the situation has gotten worse, not better.

Another issue is a general economic decline in Europe. Things aren't awful, but they aren't great and there's less faith in the long term outlook. So people aren't feeling as generous as they used to.

"A big one is the CIA and State Department. They've traditionally viewed right wing parties in Europe as the enemy, and made efforts to keep them from winning."

Could I have a source? Even if nothing concrete?

Yeah the State Department and CIA spent decades funding the European far right as part of Operation Gladio and similar stay-behind operations.

We're no longer in those days, since the fall of the Soviet Union, keeping the EU from competing economically and militarily has been a constant goal of US foreign policy. Need I remind anyone what happened to Nordstream. And this arguably started much earlier with Suez and the liquidation of colonial empires in cooperation with the Soviets.

The West may be allies on paper but the relationship is more that of a client, and the then pro-capitalist far right of the cold war has become more nationalist and against external influences and fealty, which makes them incompatible with US goals for Europe. Which is why they're now funded by the no longer communist Russians instead of the Americans.

Aside from Nordstream, what does the United States do to depress Europe's economies? Nothing really comes to mind, apart from tariffs and stuff.

Destroy colonial Empires (they are still at it in Africa against France to this day), sabotage all attempts at military cooperation not under the aegis of NATO (countless examples), industrial and economic espionnage of all kinds, manipulations of all kinds to prevent and destroy competition with their industries, and most recently prevent a negotiated peace in Ukraine to manifest a ruinous war by means of Boris Johnson.

All fair play in the great game of course, but let us not pretend the US and Europe have converging interests.

Nordstream was a Ukrainian op

Downvoted while correct. This forum should really take out the downvote button entirely since it's just a "boo outgroup" button.

Says the American press after trying to pin it on Russia. And in a context of divided Ukrainian leadership.

I'm personally convinced it was the Brits, but who it exactly was that pressed the button matters little given they were most likely acting under American orders or with assent from them.

It benefits them tremendously, they have the capability and they specifically threatened to do it before the fact. You need a lot less to convict someone.

they specifically threatened to do it before the fact.

This is flatly incorrect. The US threatened to "shut it down" if Russia invaded, which was in reference to a secret agreement with Germany that the US would end sanctions on the pipeline if they promised to end it if an invasion happened. That agreement got invoked. The pipeline got bombed afterwards.

You're quoting Biden wrong. Here's what he said:

If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2, We will put an end to it.

Now sure, a good defense attorney would argue this refered only to peaceful sanctions, my client meant that he would economically ruin the man, not shoot him dead. But then the prosecution would follow with the countless previous times where the US didn't get their way and used force and covert operations to make their promises happen, including on allies, including acts of war.

Maybe Biden did mean it in the purely economic sense. But it's still conspicuous.

And if you add this to the fact it tremendously helps the US economically that this pipeline no longer exists and Russia and Germany are economically severed, and the fact they are currently in a proxy war with Russia, the circumstances don't look good for the defense.

More comments

I'm personally convinced it was the Brits

Can you expand on this? I haven’t heard this theory before and I don’t see what we’d have to gain. Unless purely sucking up to the US? Even we aren’t that self-sabotaging, although I can’t say that as strongly as I once might have.

Personally I would give 80% odds it’s some combo of Ukrainian and American op, on the basis of opportunity plus cui bono.

It's funny you haven't heard of the Brit theory because it's the one claimed by the Russians: that the same navy advisors helping the ukies in the black sea did it.

There's some circumstantial evidence that Lizz Truss sent confirmation to Blinken right after the event.

I'll readily admit this is mostly a hunch because the evidence of any party being the actual operator of the sabotage is scant. It's all hearsay even for the Ukrainian theory. We know the Brits have been doing a lot of other US dirty work-related to this war, so it fits into a larger picture.

More comments

A big one is the CIA and State Department. They've traditionally viewed right wing parties in Europe as the enemy, and made efforts to keep them from winning.

how long is this tradition? Are you counting communists as right wing?

Note that the right wing party in Poland just lost.

With no trace of CIA/State Department meddling, unless you assume that EU is CIA plant.

unless you assume that EU is CIA plant.

I mean... isn't it a bit weird how European political junkies have been swearing up and down, for years on end, that the Culture War spats we discuss here are strictly an American thing, and anyone serious finds them absurd here, only for European town halls to start raising the trans flag for the #TransDayOfRemembrance?

To be fair, it doesn't mean the CIA is behind it. My bets are on the UN and WEF.

UN

UN actually succeeding at something would be the most surprising part here.

I would rather blame Facebook and Twitter and Tik Tok.

UN actually succeeding at something would be the most surprising part here.

Again, it's a place where the elites mingle, and the power of these places is grossly underappreciated.

I would rather blame Facebook and Twitter and Tik Tok.

I invite you to check out my responses to SouthKraut. There's several things about how these issues developed that just do not fit into a bottom-up spread via social media.

I wouldn't let intelligence agencies take credit for that.

It's simply the internet, social media, smartphones, the globalization of the English language and the prevalence of American memes. People soak up all kinds of stupidity so long as it's in the water for them, and now that many people have a permanent window upon woke rot open in their palms, they'll naturally absorb it.

It's simply the internet, social media, smartphones, the globalization of the English language and the prevalence of American memes.

The problem I have with this explanation is that I'm yet to see any of this stuff get implemented bottom-up. Compare what's happening to how long it took mainstream parties to kind-of-sort-of start doing something about immigration for fear of giving more votes to populists. I stopped paying attention to electoral politics, but I don't remember any political upset, where some woke youth-oriented party got way more votes than expected, and forced the mainstream to adapt to the new zeitgeist. In fact, this is the very reason why I can understand European normies pooh-poohing concerns about the Culture War, this stuff basically came out of nowhere if you're following a bottom-up model.

That said, I wouldn't put (too much of) it on intelligence agencies either. I agree it's through soaking up culture, but it's not through Tumblr and memes, it's through elite universities, and various get-togethers where the elites mingle.

IMO it doesn't take much bottom-up for these things to happen. It's not just the youth, after all. Everyone has a smartphone, most people and almost all women are consuming social media, and this includes older people well into working age and also those who have great influence over or are decision-makers in organizations that now openly display the symbols of some woke agenda. The youth may be faster to get on board, but not by much - most want to be on the right side of history, and even middle-aged administrators will pick up on which is the right side in CURRENT_YEAR.

administrators will pick up on which is the right side in CURRENT_YEAR.

In my opinion this would, again, indicate this stuff is not bottom up at all. The bottom has no power to dictate which side is the right one, without overwhelming numbers.

I'd say the Bottom is in agreement with what middle management is doing here. My point is that everyone is more-or-less equally swayed, and that it's not a handful of key players pushing their agenda. There's simply no need for a conspiracy - when many push and nobody openly resists and the masses cheer because all groups consume the same media and absorb the same memes and know what the right thing to do is, then of course town halls are going to fly rainbow flags and whatever else, entirely without a shadowy organization needing to manipulate anyone.

More comments

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