site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26698 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

Yes I agree that the civilian/combatant distinction is useless in the vast majority of cases. I further assert most people asserted to be Palestinian Civilians would fail all but the most lenient tests if given a questionnaire with a perfect truth detector.

Now that’s interesting! Do you believe that there’s much of a point at all then, to making targeting civilians a war crime? Do you see the Oct 7 attack on Israeli civilians as a justified part of war-making?

Do you believe that there’s much of a point at all then, to making targeting civilians a war crime?

Targeting how? Am I bombing a football stadium during gametime with a MOAB? Sure. Give that Colonel or Major the death penalty after the war.

But almost always when it is applicable, its a street level thing where you are operating with near zero info, often nowadays soldiers are intentionally dressing as civilians, and "civilians" are running interference for their local boys. In that case, blow the whole block and I don't see where the crime is. If I am "supporting" the military with a vote, I also am not a civilian, because the purpose of voting is to avoid internal civil wars. But that is not a good standard for the other side to try and figure out. So just lay off women and children that are in basements where there are no other men at all. If any men want to profess equal amounts of non-participation they should begin a military resistance movement against the government that they do not support.

Edit I forgot this part

Do you see the Oct 7 attack on Israeli civilians as a justified part of war-making?

Not really. They didn't make any real attempts to target IDF soft targets. They just targeted the equivalent of a football stadium, a concert. They also actively fled engagement with IDF instead, fleeing them, and targeting residences where they had zero reason to expect to particularly find IDF resources. Also, it was a surprise attack. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to hamstring yourself in war, like a lot of progressives seem to think Great Britain/USA/Israel/France should do, but it does show a certain lack of courage. Combined with their cowardly appeals to the UN/western progressives for a ceasefire since 10/7 I think it betrays a guilty mind of a people who know they are not conducting themselves in a way compatible with being considered members of a human society.

If I am "supporting" the military with a vote, I also am not a civilian, because the purpose of voting is to avoid internal civil wars.

This might be your personal opinion, but international law disagrees and clearly lays out who is combatant and who is civilian.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-50

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 50 - Definition of civilians and civilian population

  1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
  1. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
  1. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

These categories are there:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

...

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

...

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

back to Oct 7 event:

Not really. They didn't make any real attempts to target IDF soft targets.

They did.

In December this figure was further revised using social security data to 1,139.[14] This number consists of 764 civilians, including 36 children, and 373 security forces,[14] the youngest of whom was 10 months old and the eldest 25 people over age 80.[14][175]

...

They also actively fled engagement with IDF instead, fleeing them, and targeting residences where they had zero reason to expect to particularly find IDF resources.

According to your previous definition, voting is act of combat and anyone who votes is therefore legitimate target.

Combined with their cowardly appeals

And now you keep adding another things.

Just say what you want to say: "We good, ug. They bad, ug ug. We kill them, this good, ug ug ug. They kill us, this bad, ug ug ug ug."

This might be your personal opinion, but international law disagrees and clearly lays out who is combatant and who is civilian.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-50

I know this. I consider the bulk of international law illegitimate, as does everyone who conducts war, because they don't really seem to bother with it until they win, and then selectively apply it to the other side and a few domestic outsiders.

And now you keep adding another things.

Just say what you want to say: "We good, ug. They bad, ug ug. We kill them, this good, ug ug ug. They kill us, this bad, ug ug ug ug."

I consider history when evaluating a populace, yes. And Palestinians are historically, as a group, bad. To disagree is not just to disagree with me, but to disagree with the international community as understood by their actions (rather than their virtue signaling at the UN). Egypt has continually refused to either accept Gazan refugees or to annex Gaza. Ditto Lebanon and Jordan with the West Bankers. And those refugees in those two countries are not allowed to join society as a whole, instead are relegated to camps. Western cities that have large Palestinian populations face issues with them as well. There is a reason that much of Europe is opposed to Israel conducting an effective operation in Gaza: They believe it will generate refugees that they will have to pretend to be enthusiastically accepting(International law after all wink) when they know they will be like the Syrian refugees on steroids when it comes to sucking up resources without providing any foreseeable ROI.

I know this. I consider the bulk of international law illegitimate

Do you object to current international law concerning war in particular, or to the idea of laws and custom of warfare in general?

If the latter, then your beef is not only with soft modern liberal age, but with nearly all cultures of history, who had their laws and customs concerning wars.

There were always people who said "Might makes right!" "Fuck the law, we have guns". It this is what inspires you, go ahead, but better make dooubly sure that you really have the might and that you really possess enough guns.

I consider history when evaluating a populace, yes. And Palestinians are historically, as a group, bad.

So, "good people" should have carte blanche to massacre "bad people" with impunity. Who gets to decide who is "bad"? Well, the "good" people, they are experts on goodness and badness, after all.

To disagree is not just to disagree with me, but to disagree with the international community as understood by their actions (rather than their virtue signaling at the UN). Egypt has continually refused to either accept Gazan refugees or to annex Gaza. Ditto Lebanon and Jordan with the West Bankers. And those refugees in those two countries are not allowed to join society as a whole, instead are relegated to camps.

Palestinians are bad, because no one wants them, no one would welcome them as refugees.

As someone who identifies with Jews/Israelis, this is really the last argument you should use.

The Jews have proven to be good at self government. They also do well as a minority in productivity (although their politics leaves much to be desired). Palestinians are can't do either.

With regard to war, I think most people pretend they abide by rules when they aren't pressed. Which is often now because they all have daddy ruling everything. But overall, yes, the current set of rules of war are particularly odious.

Okay, so we’re mostly in agreement then.

Targeting how? Am I bombing a football stadium during gametime with a MOAB? Sure. Give that Colonel or Major the death penalty after the war.

Do you agree that there should be laws on the books (aka war crimes) that criminalize killing civilians in cases like this when there is clearly no reason to believe military assets will be affected, so that said colonel or major can actually be tried and given the death penalty after the war?

If I am "supporting" the military with a vote, I also am not a civilian, because the purpose of voting is to avoid internal civil wars. But that is not a good standard for the other side to try and figure out. So just lay off women and children that are in basements where there are no other men at all.

And if those women voted for the enemy military force? Or if those women work in factories producing munitions during the day, but are now cowering before you in a basement, is it therefore justified to shoot them as a non-civilian?

And if an unarmed man is hiding with the rest of his family in that basement, is it justified to take him specifically out and shoot him? Why only the man but not the women?

Do you agree that there should be laws on the books (aka war crimes) that criminalize killing civilians in cases like this when there is clearly no reason to believe military assets will be affected, so that said colonel or major can actually be tried and given the death penalty after the war?

Yes, but I picked an outrageous example for a reason. My standard would that the targeting would have to be en masse or systemic. And it would have to be reserved for officers. So the people who planned 10/7, yes, the footsoldiers no. Those are just normal crimes that you could, if you captured them, try them in your own civilian courts, but I'm not dragging my own side's grunts into court for war crimes. It doesn't make logical sense to me. This isn't purely a "just following orders" argument, its also an argument to the inherent barbarity of war for the deployed footsoldier.

And if those women voted for the enemy military force? Or if those women work in factories producing munitions during the day, but are now cowering before you in a basement, is it therefore justified to shoot them as a non-civilian?

If you know these facts to be true, I would be accepting of moving the women into the combatant category. A lot of extra intelligence work IMO instead of just glassing the factory though...

And if an unarmed man is hiding with the rest of his family in that basement, is it justified to take him specifically out and shoot him? Why only the man but not the women?

Because I don't believe modern theories about men and women being the same. If he's combat aged, he's a presumed combatant. If he's not on his country's side regarding the invasion of his homeland his obligation is to vacate his country or defect to my military so we can install a regime he prefers.

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