site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31051 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

Putin would have taken the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine and incorporated them into Russia. Then he would sabre-rattle in the Balkans but do exactly nothing because the Balkans are part of NATO.

Then he would die of old age unlike the hundred thousands of young men who died horrible deaths in this war.

If there's one thing that this war has shown, it's that (a huge amount of) Russian-speaking Ukrainians do genuinely see themselves as Ukrainians, not Russians, and would prefer to live under Ukraine. After all, it's that constituency that, for the most part, is forming the refugee wave to the rest of Europe - the Facebook groups for Ukrainians in Finland have been full of "I just arrived from Donetsk... I came from Mariupol... Is it safe to return to Kharkiv?" and so on. As such, Ukraine would still be depopulated (anyone in the new border with Russia would have a good reason to leave on the assumption that Russia might want to grab more at any time), it would of course still be considerably weakened, and Western support or no Western support, the indications are that Ukrainians would have fought until loss and occupation, so you might still have hundreds of thousands of young men dying horrible deaths.

Of course, if Russians had managed to take huge regions with comparative ease in this war, it would have made it inevitable they would have then gone for other non-NATO areas of the former Soviet Union - formally incorporating Belarus, new wars with Moldova and Georgia, a bout with Kazakhstan - and would have then settled for waiting for NATO to disintegrate, probably aided by internal anger by countries like Poland over the "betrayal of Ukraine", to try to expand into Baltics (I assume this is what you mean by Balkans). Considerable destabilization in Eastern Europe in any case, huge loss of unity for the West as Russians demonstrate they can just roll over a Westernizing nation, a new legitimation of annexation as a political concept causing even more destabilization worldwide.

and would have then settled for waiting for NATO to disintegrate, probably aided by internal anger by countries like Poland over the "betrayal of Ukraine"

That's a pipe dream no matter how well the war went for Russia. Russia is weak. NATO is strong.

Nevertheless, I do think initial resistance to Russian invasion was good. There is simply a limit to how many lives I think should be wasted. That limit is far less than the > 200,000 that have already been wasted.

Putin attempted a decapitation strike against the Ukrainian government and plainly stated it is not a legitimate nation and is merely part of Russia.

Putin grows hungrier by the eating. I don't buy "if we just gave him a little and stop resisting so much Putin would stop".

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