site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   26368 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

If the Abraham Accords had gotten Egypt to get along with Israel, then that would've made it a success but it didn't, so it wasn't. My point stands fine, your point that the Abraham Accords were this major breakthrough remains weak.

What kind of bullshit is this? The Egyptians already had made peace with Israel. They mainly made peace in return for the Sinai, not American aid. Thats just a benefit.

Your obfuscating things to match your agenda. The Abraham Accords had no need for Egypt, because Egypt had already made peace. They got four Arab states to go make peace with Israel. Two of them Gulf States.

The Iranians are fighting their proxy wars because they know they're on the chopping block, they saw exactly what happened to Iraq and Trump showed that American promises aren't worth the paper they're written on. They want all pro-US forces as far away from them as possible.

The Iranians are fighting a proxy war because they want to spread their own brand of political Islamism and revolutionary islamic govt. Pro-US forces are there to stop the spread. This helps maintain stability and aid the Saudis and by extension, other Gulf states like Bahrain, UAE and Oman.

It is hard to keep yourself together when the US is occupying your territory. The problem here is the US stirring up the Middle East, causing chaos, conveniently wrecking anyone that might threaten Israel.

...the US isnt occupying any of Syria. What are you even on about? You mean because the US supports the Syrian Democratic forces with a very minimal amount of troops? The Syrian Democratic Forces are local forces, mainly local Kurds and Arabs, who arent even trying to rebel against Assad anymore. They mostly want autonomy and detente with the Syrian state. The reason US forces were even there was to help the Kurds fight ISiS. It had nothing to do with Israel, and it certainly isnt an American occupation. Most of the forces are Syrian, local Kurds and Arabs who run the show. Saying the US occupies Northeastern Syria is ridiculous.

The invasion of Iraq was heavily motivated by Israeli influence. Everything from Israel's false WMD intelligence to the open admissions from people in the know like Philip Zelikow, General Wesley Clark, Ruth Wedgewood, Senator Ernest Hollings and others. And people like Sharon and Netanyahu were publicly doing their usual 'they're going to get WMD's routine', urging war. Notably the Israelis panicked when Iraq let in UN weapons inspectors, switching to a position that the inspectors were going to be deceived and so the war must go on regardless, as it did: Foreign Minister Peres told reporters, "The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."

The fact that you obfuscated with Egypt leaves all of this incredibly suspect. Sharon was neutral on Iraq, and he was the Prime Minister at the time. Do you really expect the israelis to come out in full force opposition to their greatest ally? They would primarily share their thoughts in private. And Sharon was neutral.

Iraq was motivated because George W Bush had an axe to grind. His father didnt take down Saddam, and that fact irked Bush. So Bush, along with Cheney, was happy to finally take Saddam down. The Iraq war was a mistake motivated by personal interests, not any Israeli concerns.

Abraham Accords

Why can't you understand a conditional clause? If it were the Abraham Accords that got Egypt to get along with Israel, then that would've made them an achievement. The Abraham Accords got Bahrain and the UAE, of which only the UAE matters. Morocco too, which has basically nothing to do with the Middle East other than being Arab and Islamic.

the US isnt occupying any of Syria.

They have troops there. ISIS is gone yet US troops remain. Clearly it's not about fighting ISIS. If you have troops on the soil of another country without their permission, it's an occupation.

Sharon was neutral on Iraq

No he wasn't. This is a blatant lie.

On August 12, 2002, Sharon told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset that Iraq "is the greatest danger facing Israel

Haaretz reported on February 26, 2001, that "Sharon believes that Iraq poses more of a threat to regional stability than Iran, due to the errant, irresponsible behavior of Saddam Hussein's regime."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1404673/Sharon-urges-America-to-bring-down-Saddam.html

He also wanted an invasion of Iran after Iraq was dealt with: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/05/israel.iraq

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