site banner
PaperclipPerfector  29d ago (text post)   35301 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 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.

Eight or nine years ago, it became clear Trump says things he doesn't plan on doing because he values the reaction he gets in politics/negotiations. He's been doing this for a decade and likely longer. He (or someone) wrote a book where saying shocking things while hiding what you want is how one should behave in business. And yet, every single time this happens people take Trump at face-value and attack/criticize the proposal.

IMO, this is never going to happen. Trump forced the Israelis to accept a ceasefire. Now, he is going to batter the Arabs; the immediate strong condemnation by Saudi Arabia was expected and desired. Then he's going to use the discontent to seek some achievable goal. If I had to guess, he's going to try to force the Arab states' repeatedly stated proposals for a Palestinian state which is the responsibility of a Muslim country or coalition.

If I had to make a prediction; if Trump manages to cut this gordian knot, it's going to be because he gets Saudi Arabia (or perhaps a Muslim partnership) to take ownership over at least Gaza. They will get a corridor which is either theirs or granted to them in order to project power and material by land from Saudi Arabia to Gaza.

Saudi Arabia will crack down viciously on violent extremist there. The Ummah will not object because it will be Muslims ruling Muslims. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will pour money and investment into the country and this will hugely benefit the people there. This project may even get Iran on board and serve as a bridge for conflicting Muslim factions. If something like this happens, it would be a great development in the region and deserving of world-history level accolades.

The classic "don't worry about it, he's just lying" defense.

I can see why it's exhausting, but you must admit he often just says dumb shit pretty often.

Also known as "bluffing". It's a thing in negotiations.

If I had to make a prediction; if Trump manages to cut this gordian knot, it's going to be because he gets Saudi Arabia (or perhaps a Muslim partnership) to take ownership over at least Gaza. They will get a corridor which is either theirs or granted to them in order to project power and material by land from Saudi Arabia to Gaza.

In what world would Saudi Arabia, or any other country, agree to this? Israel already tried to give Gaza to the Egyptians, and they didn't want it. Gaza is nothing more than a headache for any country with the misfortune of having sovereignty over them. Hell, Saudi Arabia doesn't even have any formal relations with Israel and doesn't recognize them, yet Israel is supposed to grant their military unlimited transit across their territory? Not to mention that Jordan would have to agree to this as well.

The world where Saudi Arabia isn't Egypt and the Arab League has had something like this proposal, known as the Arab Peace Initiative, for nearly two decades which offers totally normalized relations in exchange for the end of the occupation and a Palestinian state and has also been endorsed by Iran and Hezbollah. So, this world which we live in right now.

Is this speculated predicted deal the same as that? No, there are some differences. Is this deal likely? No, it's a prediction based on a difficult conditional.

Saudi Arabia and the Arab League isn't Egypt. One is stable and filthy rich and the other is teetering on collapse. Jordan will do what the US demands and so will Israel if someone who is seen as a rabid Zionist actually forces them to face consequences if they don't.

None of those initiatives offered a clear sovereign to rule over the Palestinian State and ensure that its territory is not used to launch attacks.

That's the missing piece. The (esp Arab) world does not want Israel to be that entity. But they don't want to step up and do it themselves. So all that's left is to periodically mow the grass.

Right, which is why Trump announced the US was going to do it themselves then to pressure the Arabs; do the Arabs want the US to administer it or would they prefer to do it themselves?

Eight or nine years ago, it became clear Trump says things he doesn't plan on doing because he values the reaction he gets in politics/negotiations. He's been doing this for a decade and likely longer. He (or someone) wrote a book where saying shocking things while hiding what you want is how one should behave in business. And yet, every single time this happens people take Trump at face-value and attack/criticize the proposal.

This, more or less. It's the literally vs seriously division all over again, and about as interesting as it was last time.

The distinction should however be turned on his supporters as much as his detractors. If you cannot understand someone's intentions from the meaning of his words, you can never, ever trust him when he claims to be on your side.

For it to be deserve to be turned on his supporters as much as his detractors, his supporters would need to not understand his intentions as much as his detractors.

I am far from persuaded this is the case.

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