site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33246 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lord Hermer is a hardcore very pro-Palestinian Jew, though, who has implicitly (not explicitly, since as AG that would contradict Starmer’s own position) defended the ICC’s warrant for Netanyahu among other things:

In May 2023, Hermer was amongst many lawyers who signed a Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights letter addressed to Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, which called on the government to constructively participate in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the actions of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem.[15] In July 2023, Hermer stated that he believed that the "continued Israeli occupation of the West bank" was "unlawful, deeply damaging to the interests of Israel and wholly contrary to the values of tikkun olam" which Hermer grew up with and continued to be guided by.[2]

In October 2023, Hermer was amongst eight prominent Jewish lawyers, which included former Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger, who signed an open letter to call on Israel to follow international law in its response to the 7 October attacks.[193] Later that month, in an interview with LBC whilst speaking to Sangita Myska, he said that it was "impossible to conceive" how Israel's siege was "in compliance with international law".[194] He went on to say that "for a very long time" Israel has had "effective control" over the borders of Gaza, which he said was reliant on the "need to have electricity, water and food coming in"; and that the "cutting of that off" was "very, very difficult to reconcile with obligations of international law" and described that as a "deliberate understatement" from him.[194]

If he is interested in advancing Jewish interests, he is doing a very poor job of it.

As an aside, international law is a dumb concept when it obligates you to actively help your enemies in a war. It is one thing to say “don’t aggressively torture PoWs.” It is another thing to say “power your enemies stronghold.”

Can not the international law types see the obvious futility of demanding these kinds of “laws?” They invite contempt and thereby prove out the weakness of international law as a concept.

I'm pretty sure that's specific to Israel. The theory is that Israel isn't at war with Gaza, they're an occupying power with responsibility to their population. This is a stupid theory, of course, but twisting international law into pretzels to reach the conclusion that Israel should assist its own destruction is pretty much par for the course. Fortunately for Israel, Netanyahu isn't Keir Starmer.

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