site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25674 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Since @greyenlightenment suggested a list of topics that weren't getting enough attention in the previous CWR thread, I decided to write a bit about Russia-Ukraine situation.

The summer campaign has ended, and Ukraine has found itself in an unenviable situation. The much-hyped counteroffensive has achieved only marginal gains, but the EU has exhausted its disposable stocks of arms and armor and the US, which has enough disposable firepower to zone rouge a medium-sized country, is a) not a charity and b) kinda getting busy with other stuff.

All this means Ukraine knows it won't be able to conduct further offensive operations and its most important medium-term goal is to not lose. There are multiple ways it can lose:

  • it loses foreign financial support that is keeping its economy afloat, either because
    • it runs out of collateral for the IMF and similar sharks' loans, or because
    • paying Russia off directly becomes a much cheaper option, or because
    • its politicians, who, like Squire Trelawney, don't know when to keep their mouth shut, pick a fight with each other or the EU
  • it runs out of SAMs during the winter and Russia achieves air superiority. I am quite sure there are people in Russia right now trying to come up with the cheapest possible missiles or drones that can't be shot down with tube AA
  • Putin re-elects himself in spring and starts a mass mobilization to extend the frontline. There's a reason why Ukraine started talking about reinforcing their northern border

Having so many ways to lose means the time is ripe for a ceasefire or even peace negotiations, but when your adversary smells blood they won't be satisfied with just what they have. So Ukraine either:

  • tries to agree to a ceasefire and frantically prepares for a resumption of hostilities (and even the biggest patriots of Ukraine won't trust their country not to screw the process up fatally)
  • agrees to significant concessions in exchange for peace (Finlandization at the very least, outright puppeting as the worst-case scenario)
  • or continues to resist, hoping for a black swan that hurts Russia and not them, or at least for a glorious last stand (sure Prague is a prettier city than Warsaw, but Poles know the glory is theirs)

but the EU has exhausted its disposable stocks of arms and armor and the US, which has enough disposable firepower to zone rouge a medium-sized country, is a) not a charity and b) kinda getting busy with other stuff.

One point that I think bears mentioning more often is that there is a back-channel game at play here: the US probably could fund or supply this war itself, but has been trying to pressure (Western) Europe into properly funding it's own defense.

There is that video of the Germans at the UN laughing at Trump suggesting their military expenditures were inadequate and that Russia was not to be trusted, but official statements about missing NATO GDP targets on defense spending have been going on for multiple administrations. Here is an easy chance for the EU to do so, and it's failing in a tragedy of the commons: Germany isn't likely to get invaded soon, so why should they pay for it instead of Poland?

Also worth mentioning is a political zeitgeist in which the EU has often historically protested American foreign policies (most notably the 2003 Iraq adventure, which I will concede probably deserved it, but also the presence of US troops in the EU, support of Israel, and a few other military activities like Libya), but also expected Team America, World Police to show up when war came to their doorstep. The US seems to be trying to balance its hardware support with a goal of getting the EU to pull it's share.

Also worth mentioning is a political zeitgeist in which the EU has often historically protested American foreign policies (...) but also expected Team America, World Police to show up when war came to their doorstep.

I'm going to push back on this a little. You are right that there is definitely an attitude among some Europeans that the yanks are a bit too keen on war (though plenty of Americans feel the same), but when the rubber hits the road the Europeans have broadly been willing to muck in. Yes Iraq was an exception - though the Brits were there with you - but as you mentioned the 'Iraq war bad' position has broadly been vindicated. Afghanistan, which was only marginally more justified, got buy in from the Europeans. The Libyan intervention was, if anything, French led. I'm not aware of any major dramas surrounding US troops in Europe, most nations are just happy to have them there. As for Israel, European leaders have generally been very supportive in their rhetoric - often to the detriment of their own internal unity with their Muslim populations. You might argue that only America really offers proper material support to Israel, but this is done for very American reasons (Jewish lobby).

You are right that there is definitely an attitude among some Europeans that the yanks are a bit too keen on war (though plenty of Americans feel the same), but when the rubber hits the road the Europeans have broadly been willing to muck in.

I suppose I hadn't considered the general possibility that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks in Europe might be different than the "increase support for Ukraine" crowd. There's a bit of a generalized fallacy in assuming all of the voices we hear from afar are unified, when it's quite possible that different subsets are making different points.

The Libyan intervention was, if anything, French led.

In 2011, yes, although they notably had to drag the Americans in, with rumors that European forces were running short of munitions, which seems quite relevant to the bigger picture. Libya has come up a few times before: in 1986 the US bombed Libya in retaliation for an attack on a Berlin discotheque, but was denied air transit over continental Europe (instead having to fly around Gibraltar), and afterward received some tacit condemnation from West Germany and France (notably France also struck Libyan targets in the '80s several times for its own reasons). I don't disagree with your characterization, either: the world is a surprisingly complicated place.

I suppose I hadn't considered the general possibility that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks in Europe might be different than the "increase support for Ukraine" crowd.

They absolutely, positively are two entirely separate crowds, in a way that I would have considered obvious and self-evident to anyone.

I would go further and say that the vocal "America bad" peaceniks and the Greenwald/Chomsky style pro-Russia tankies are the same people, just like they are in the US.

I'm under the impression that there are relatively few people who are truly sympathetic to NATO and the US presence in Europe, relatively more who are against it out of some lingering cold-war era pacifist or anti-American sentiments, and a large majority that doesn't care either way.

NATO commands a wide majority of support in almost all of the member states, and a majority of support in all of them.

In the UK, support for NATO is one of the litmus test issues used to distinguish between the left and the far left. Jeremy Corbyn personally opposes UK membership of NATO, but he didn't try to make pulling out Labour party policy while he was leader because he knew it would have blown up the Labour party.

My understanding is that this is the same in every European country except France (where the Gaullist right saw NATO membership as subservience to the US) and, historically, Spain (because a lot of the Spanish centre-left blamed NATO for propping up Franco).

I think it depends a lot on what you consider the boundary of 'truly sympathetic'. If by that you mean 'full-throated advocacy' then yes what you're saying is probably about right. But most of those who "don't care either way" would come down on the side of NATO and the US if you asked them.*

I also think this is one of those issues where the opinion of the general population deviates substantially from that of the loud and terminally online.

*If I were to bet on one country bucking that trend it would be France. They are quite haughty and resent having to rely on anyone, especially The Anglos, for anything.

That may well be true. I'd say it depends on the phrasing of the question, but to be fair that's all guesswork on my part.

One point that I think bears mentioning more often is that there is a back-channel game at play here: the US probably could fund or supply this war itself, but has been trying to pressure (Western) Europe into properly funding it's own defense.

I wish this was the case, but everything I've read and heard from people in the USFG is that US military planners are genuinely worried about preparedness against China, which makes sense since the US defense-industrial base has been a smoldering crater for the past decade or so. That, and polarization makes it hard to get stuff through Congress now.

Really, Europe should be shouldering the vast majority of the burden for Ukraine. It's more important to them than it is to us for reasons of simple proximity. On the flip side, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Europe will be completely irrelevant (beyond mostly toothless sanctions) if a hot war breaks out over Taiwan, so the US will basically be forced to play the primary role there. Europe certainly has the potential to shoulder the Ukraine issue themselves, and it wouldn't even be that difficult. Yet it's been nearly two years and the entirety of the EU is getting lapped by North Korea in terms of artillery shells contributed. It's farcical.

Germany isn't likely to get invaded soon, so why should they pay for it instead of Poland?

Let's be honest. Poland is not being invaded either, nor Romania or Bulgaria. Russia being a non nuclear threat for EU is pearl clutching or statesmen's equivalent of rape fantasy. Moldova maybe. But not west of there.

I think if I were the Baltic states, and I was depending exclusively on the EU (sans America) for protection, there would be some legitimate questions about whether German or Spanish troops were ready and willing to fight on our behalf, or whether we'd be ceded like Czechoslovakia in 1939 for "peace in our time" and continued natural gas to Germany (largely moot post 2022)? Would the French or British use nuclear weapons in our defense?

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