site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   27737 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025

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.

In my opinion, the polity that is non-Jewish inhabitants of that territory includes a majority of people that cannot tolerate the existence of Jews (or Christians) in their vicinity. My evidence for this is that such populations in adjacent states populated by persons similar to Islamic Palestinians have also been ethnically cleansed or genocided over the last century.

In other words, we have centuries of evidence that polities consisting of Arab Muslims are evil, and Palestinians hew closely to the norms of said polities. In fact, they often embrace them to the extreme.

OTOH Israel's response to the provocations of its neighbors has been historically judicious, particularly given their military advantages. If they wanted, there would currently be zero Palestinians in Palestine. But not only that, zero Jordanians, zero Syrians, zero Lebanese. This is similar to the US in Iraq/Afghanistan. Our error was in being too concerned with casualties, when in war they often are the point.

This is similar to the US in Iraq/Afghanistan. Our error was in being too concerned with casualties, when in war they often are the point.

Casualties, and humiliation. The failure of Afghanistan for the US was in trying a consultative approach, putting in local leaders who would exercise the necessary political authority to stabilize the violent tribes while staying their hand in conducting pogroms and massacres. The peace of the Taliban was an imposed one by the rifle, just as the peace of Timur was one of the sword and the peace of Shah (can't remember which one) was imposed by the Raj. Humiliation and subjugation destroys the root of a poisonous tree, and while the soil will grow another cursed plant later on, it will have to take a new form and promises at least a generation of brittle peace as it grows.

Israels peace with Jordan, Syria and Egypt would have failed were it not for their own internal coups. Israel may not have flown the star of david over Cairo, Damascus or Amman, but their internal rebels did, and that is itself enough to incentivize peace while buying time to deal with internal struggles. Israels light touch is not what rewarded it with peace, the incompetence of its enemies is what gives Israel each of its future days.

There's little evidence that those countries will exceed Israel in competence anytime soon.

My evidence for this is that such populations in adjacent states populated by persons similar to Islamic Palestinians have also been ethnically cleansed or genocided over the last century.

Have you looked at the history of the region before Israel? Palestinian jews were more than capable of living in peace with Palestinian arabs, and even in the earliest stages of the conflict the Palestinian movements called those jews their brothers.

In other words, we have centuries of evidence that polities consisting of Arab Muslims are evil,

When you start talking about how entire populations are just inherently evil you have departed from reality and polite society both. You can adopt this position on the motte, but you're forever in the same category as the Nazis and the white nationalists. If you want to support ethnic cleansing and genocide, you're free to - but good luck advocating this murderous and hateful belief to the rest of the world.

OTOH Israel's response to the provocations of its neighbors has been historically judicious,

I could say the same about Rome's judicious responses to the provocations of the rebellious hebrews. The Romans treated them so incredibly well, even to the point of building roads and aqueducts for them - but those ungrateful Jews just kept violently attacking them for no legitimate reason. Maybe the Jews were just inherently evil and full of hatred for Italians - after all, there were centuries of evidence proving that the Jews just kept on attacking the Romans unprovoked! If the Romans wanted, there would be zero jews living in Judea - but they were just too nice, too generous and too concerned with the casualties of their enemies. What moral titans!

Under the Ottoman rule peace was enforced via subjugation. The Muslims were content to let the Jews and Christians live so long as the Muslims remained supreme.

but good luck advocating this murderous and hateful belief to the rest of the world.

The Arabs are right now celebrating their victory over the Jew and promising endless Oct 7, and immediately after Oct 7 we had the NY DSA and elite universities rush to celebrate the slaughter, complete with swastika signs and giddy promises for more slaughter. You are free to castigate those supporting the moral position of an Israeli state exercising the right to defend itself, but your own moral position is shared by loathsome belligerents that would rape murder and flay you apart, in that order only if you're lucky.

I'd assume the lucky order is where they murder first.

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