site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   36908 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 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.

“If you drive [Gaza’s civilians] into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.”

Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

Golda Meir, 1973. Whatever you think of her, that's pretty much why Israel felt it necessary to 'drive civilians into the arms of the enemy'.

Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.

It really isn't though, and to the extent it is what happened, it is because of folks like Lloyd Austin who were focused on preserving the viability of Hamas tactics. In particular, they were much more concerned about the RESPONSE to putting rocket launchers in schools, than the rocket launchers in schools.

In particular, they were much more concerned about the RESPONSE to putting rocket launchers in schools, than the rocket launchers in schools.

This entire line of argument was just thoroughly discredited and devalued by the Israeli treatment of Gazan hospitals (and the Lebanese hospital with a pile of gold bullion supposedly being kept underneath it). Look, this is the Motte - you don't have to pretend that the IDF is "the most moral army in the world" or anything, you can just speak truthfully about what they intend and what they're doing. People aren't saying "don't blow up the hospitals and schools" because they're trying to preserve Hamas' rocket-launching capabilities, but because doing so has immense humanitarian costs and leads to people around the world viewing you as an evil, genocidal state on the same level as Hitler's Germany.

Why do people view blowing up rockets and weapons caches as evil?

They wouldn't if that's all that was going on, but I think you missed the context. They view blowing up hospitals as evil, even when rockets and weapon caches are the reason they're doing so.

Maybe. It is hard to see into the heart of a person, but I think they more object to Hamas losing.

A few hard-left loudmouths, sure, but not the vast majority of people who think Israel needs to tone it down or just want a ceasefire, any ceasefire.

But a ceasefire on these terms is Hamas winning...

We've known this pattern for over 2 decades now. If you don't understand that is on you.

I think you're assuming most of these people are more informed (or less naive) about that region than is actually the case. That may be the practical upshot of them getting what they want, but it's not their goal as they would conceive of it.

More comments

focused on preserving the viability of Hamas tactics.

That's a very confusing way to phrase things. Are you're claiming that the US military was intent on helping Hamas? Or that, in practice, that was the effect of misplaced concern? If its the latter, then you would be agreeing with:

Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.

... which you claim you don't agree with. Maybe I'm missing something.

That's a very confusing way to phrase things. Are you're claiming that the US military was intent on helping Hamas? Or that, in practice, that was the effect of misplaced concern? If its the latter, then you would be agreeing with:

Largely, yes the US left is intent on supporting Hamas and they were in charge of the US Military at the time.

No self-respecting religious Muslim (of any nation) or proud Arab (of any level of religiosity) will ever accept Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews. That is the intractable problem for Israel, that is what Meir was referring to, and that is why in the end it is probably if not definitely doomed.

I'm highly skeptical of those absolutes, but that's irrelevant. The problems of a murderous, totalitarian, intransigent ideology are vastly understated, and wildly misunderstood. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!

Concerningly, it took a lot of digging to unearth some of the following highly influential, well-known, and explanatory quotations. They remove so much of the "mystery" as to what Islam means to hundreds of million of people.

Islamic World Front - 1998:

"On that basis [of jihad], and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it... We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them..." -

Bin Laden, 'Letter To The American People' - 2002:

"...jihad against the tyrants and the aggressors is a form of great worship in our religion. It is more precious to us than our fathers and sons. Thus, our jihad against you is worship and your killing us is a testimony."

Bin Laden 'Letter to America' - 2005:

"The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam... complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions... It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme... You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."

Dabiq Magazine 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight Your" - 2016:

"One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahideen—who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations—don’t make sense... There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the shari’a—as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd—are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative... We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizya... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."

Che Guevaras purported last words:

"I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man"

The problems of a murderous, totalitarian, intransigent ideology are vastly understated, and wildly misunderstood.

Yes. You are probably understating and misunderstanding them too, given your exclusive focus on one of the two murderous, totalitarian, intransigent ideologies involved.

If it were only the Muslims being like that, the solution to @2rafa's problem would be simple - just let them have it.

I'm a bit confused. Who am I understating and misunderstanding? Just let who have what?

In case I read you right: I could go a on lengthy anti-Israel screed, especially regarding the settlers, their growing government support, and how the settlements function in or around Area C, or whatever. Some crazies - probably numbing in the hundreds of thousands, if not more - faithfully believe a maximalist, forceful, Biblical entitlement to Israel.

My post intended to highlight why basically the entire globe is subject to eternal warfare until every person on the planet submits to a version of Islam that makes sense to hundreds of millions of Muslims (and perhaps less; hard to say)

The former isn't compatible with an easy path to peace in Israel, the latter isn't compatible with civilization. Its relevant to OP because I think the main challenge in Israel is killing - or at best reforming - the latter idea. Far too many people fail to recognize its a challenge to begin with. Currently, the numbers are in favor of simply ignoring the settlers, but the power structure in Israel is not. The ideologies of the settlers pose a problem too.

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