site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   29195 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.

Why not ask the same questions about Russia?

Yes, Russia's demographics are also dire, though nowhere near as dire as Ukraine.

That said, Russia has vast natural resources while Ukraine does not. They seem to be able to trade these resources with China, India, and other countries quite easily. Many predicted that Russia's economic production would collapse. It has not.

Putin continues to prosecute the campaign, making the exact same trade: real people for theoretical future benefits. He is quite directly destroying an entire country in the process, even before considering his own people. Clearly, he’s not your sort of utilitarian, or he’d be at the bargaining table.

What bargaining table? But yes, I agree Putin is a villain. All the more reason to not to share his indifference towards human suffering.

How about the middle ground, then?

When Ukraine fights, it's a humanitarian tragedy which ought to be avoided. When Russia fights, it's a humanitarian tragedy which ought to be avoided. You are asking us to act on one but not the other. Supporting Ukraine--so long as they maintain their will to fight--is more responsible.

Yes, I believe that Russia should immediately come to the bargaining table willing to make large concessions. I hope nothing in my comments suggested that I support Russia.

My preferences are in this order:

  1. Peace with Ukrainian win (defined as 1991 borders)

  2. Peace with Russian win (defined as current borders)

  3. Continuation of the war (likely hundreds of thousands additional deaths)

  4. Escalation of the war (millions of deaths)

My disagreement with (apparently everyone?) on this board is the desirability of 2 vs. 3. What I really didn't expect was people expressing preference for 4 over 2.

Nevertheless, this whole experience has been eye-opening. I now see why people leave the Motte with long screeds about why they are leaving. I believe that, even here, most posters are incapable of expressing disagreement constructively. I believe that I've made a series of interesting contributions today. I expect to see them hugely downvoted.

Peace with Russian win (defined as current borders)

Who defines them? And if Ukraine goes for peace as defined by any specific borders giving up territory to Russia (maybe except Crimea) then I expect Putin to annex next oblast within 4 years.

Who has supported an escalation of the war? The most concrete proposals for escalating the war from the western side have been demands for direct NATO intervention, which I haven't seen anyone make here. What people have reminded, multiple times, is that there are no particular signs of withdrawal of Western support just leading to Russia calling it quits, at least very easily.

The most likely scenario at this moment that would lead to millions of death would be West withdrawing support and Russia relaunching a full-scale assault but Ukraine fighting on to the bitter end, which doesn't seem impossible.

The amount of charity/humility on TheMotte is certainly far lower than it was when /r/slatestarcodex was created. In the long run we're getting the outgroup engagement that we deserve (none).

If to "deserve" outgroup engagement one must proceed on the assumption that the outgroup is not wrong, nobody deserves it except quokkas who will soon convert themselves anyway.

One must proceed on the assumption that the outgroup is not wrong

Practicing humility and extending charity is not the same thing as assuming your out-group is not wrong. You can politely disagree with someone while assuming they're not an idiot and without making unnecessary rhetorical flourishes to demonstrate how dumb you think they are.

Thank you for stating your preferences like that. I'd taken your original argument as an isolated demand for rigor via Ukraine's surrender; that's an argument I have seen elsewhere on this board. My apologies for misunderstanding.

I do wonder--how much of the pushback has been from people making my same mistake?

Regardless, I'll second @urquan. Making observations about the downvotes is a surefire way to attract more. I'd guess it's because people view it as an expression of entitlement. Speaking as someone who draws a lot of flak, I can only note that they don't actually mean anything. Your contributions are valued.

I do wonder--how much of the pushback has been from people making my same mistake?

Probably a lot. Most people view "calls for peace" as "enemy fifth columns".

Making observations about the downvotes is a surefire way to attract more. I'd guess it's because people view it as an expression of entitlement.

That's insightful. I think you're right about the entitlement. In my personal life I'm fairly high status. So how dare people not agree with me on the internet!! I've just gotten a taste of what the typical liberal poster has to deal with on this forum. (Or the typical conservative anywhere else).

I think in general this forum helps me clear up sloppy thinking, even if it's just intellectual masturbation. I feel like this episode was somewhat frustrating because people seemed to be responding with emotion and bile, or failing that, I didn't understand their arguments well enough to change my thinking. Normally when I get pushback, I have made some fundamental mistake. If I did this time, I don't see it.

I think you're doing a good job representing an unpopular position and your contributions are valuable.

That said, I think you should delete your last paragraph. Complaining about downvotes just summons more downvotes. And take it from someone who has written such screeds, writing about how you're mad at the motte will just generate worse blowback. If you need to step away, just step away.

I think you're doing a good job representing an unpopular position and your contributions are valuable.

I would disagree. The OP is repeating old arguments and narratives rather than addressing the history or context, simply projects a personal value system and uses rhetorical conflation of positions and strawmen to avoid addressing them.

That said, I think you should delete your last paragraph. Complaining about downvotes just summons more downvotes. And take it from someone who has written such screeds, writing about how you're mad at the motte will just generate worse blowback. If you need to step away, just step away.

Or block people, as they already have been.

I think you're doing a good job representing an unpopular position and your contributions are valuable.

Thanks!

That said, I think you should delete your last paragraph. Complaining about downvotes just summons more downvotes.

Probably a good idea. I'll keep it up to keep the historical record intact and provide more evidence that whining about downvotes = getting pooped on.

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