site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   29662 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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.

Perhaps no one has noticed given Trump, Ukraine, Yemen, Trump, and eggs: war in the Middle East is back! Very strong words from America in support of Israel:

All hell will break loose, and all of the terrorists in the Middle East – again, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian-backed terror proxies and Iran themselves – should take President Trump very seriously when he says he is not afraid to stand for law-abiding people. He is not afraid to stand up for the United States of America and our friend and our ally Israel.

as compared to “Canada only works as a state”. Israel’s reasoning is as follows:

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement cited by Israeli media that the attacks had “the goal of achieving the war objectives as determined by the political leadership, including the release of all our hostages – both the living and the fallen”.

Prompt: what is it that makes Israel worthy of the friendship of the US whereas NATO is worthy of relegation given both would pull it into wars of choice half way around the world of no strategic importance? Follow-up: should Israel be the 51st state?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/03/17/middleeast/israel-strikes-gaza-hamas-ceasefire-intl-hnk

At least Israel will fight their own battles.

90% of NATO countries couldn't fight a fat kid on adderal.

Israel is fighting a small group of arabs with no logistics and failing to do so while consistently pestering the US for support.

Israel won on the battlefield in Gaza.

They couldnt take a city in a year and pacify it even with exceptional brutality and completely cutting off Gaza from the rest of the world.

They were using the opposite of exceptional brutality.

Have you heard the story of Hind Rajab? There are mountains of evidence with regards to the brutality on display, and multiple international prosecutions of the people involved. IDF members are now frequently unable to holiday in a large number of countries because they posted the war crimes they committed on social media for everyone to see. I personally have seen some of the most sickening images of my life come out of the conflict, and it actually does make me upset that my government supports what's happening (and the manufacture of the bomb delivery mechanisms that blew up those innocent people).

I'm not moved by the authority of international prosecutions - certainly it is not unthinkable that many countries, perhaps even most countries, can be wrong, or more likely overtaken by a political agenda that requires them to act as they do.

Brutality that is less than exceptional or even less than expected can undoubtedly still shock. One child killed in a bombing is one child too many for a lot of people. In the circumstances given, where the militants deliberately walk among innocents and their greatest weapon against Israel are the sickening images they publish on the Western news, I'm convinced for the moment that Israel is using less brutality than would be justified of them. It would be merely expected of them to strike at the people shooting rockets at Israel without regard to who else is in the strike zone. Taking any measures at all to blow up a little bit fewer innocent people is less brutality than expected.

None of what you said applies at all to the story of Hind Rajab and what happened, but you don't seem to understand the source of a lot of those sickening images. The Hind Rajab foundation, for instance, works almost exclusively by archiving and publishing the posts made by IDF soldiers on social media - this isn't Hamas uploading brutal images to shock the west, but the IDF uploading recordings of their own actions with pride.

If you want to keep talking about this I'd be happy to, but your post seems like a reflexive response to the issue as a general theme rather than the specifics. If you think that what you've said is in anyway an appropriate description of what happened to Hind Rajab, Mohammed Bhar or countless other stories I think you should take a long hard look at yourself. Of course, you don't need to switch sides - as I've stated on here before, I simply prefer talking to Israelis who admit that their goal is ethnic cleansing and genocide rather than trying to spin a transparently false tale about what's happening.

Is there something in the definition of winning a war that you have to win it nicely or it doesn't count?

This is a non sequitur. The person you are responding to isn't claiming the victory was illegitimate, he's making a claim about the level of force that was needed in order to win.

When you say 'own battles', do you mean Ukraine, or something else?

The tacit agreement was that they wouldn’t have to be capable of fighting their own battles (and in the case of say Germany, a lot of people didn’t want them to be capable of fighting their own battles — the memory of WW2 was still quite fresh when the Berlin Wall fell). For the sake of stability in Europe, the agreement was that countries would become semi-vassals of the US empire in exchange for the US’s protection.

Not to say that the terms of this agreement have to be binding for all eternity. If a new arrangement is needed then so be it. But this idea that European countries did something “wrong” by not maintaining a larger military presence is, I think, lacking in historical context.

in the case of say Germany, a lot of people didn’t want them to be capable of fighting their own battles

Including most Germans, until very recently and possibly still.

Was that the tacit agreement?

If so, it makes a certain limited and temporary sense for Germany and Japan.

It makes no sense at all for the rest of Europe. The US is just going to project power across the continent permanently so none of these countries need a functional military?

And we're going to do that based on a "tacit agreement"?

It's not obvious to me that the European states are, or to my knowledge ever were, interested in behaving like good vassals to the American empire.

My mental model of 'vassalage in all but name' is the Warsaw pact. If the USSR asked one of its satellites for eggs, then my understanding is that you'd damn well better have sent them some eggs.

I also can't imagine that the Soviet empire would have tolerated its vassals becoming any shade of friendly with capitalist states.

That's the underlying source of the entire problem. The United States is an Empire, but because of WWII and Cold War we are supposed to pretend that isn't the state of the world, we don't do empires in which vassals are subjugated and have clear obligations to the hegemon. But the flip side is the imperial obligations of the United States become likewise ambiguous. The American people can appeal to isolationism because on paper we aren't supposed to be an Empire with vassals and bilateral obligations.

The United States is an empire, we do have imperial obligations, but the ambiguity of that state of affairs leads to absurd arrangements in which i.e. America abandons Europe while endlessly supporting an impudent Israel, which scoffs at any attempt by America to assert authority over it. And Europe can demand support from the US without fulfilling its own obligations.

The entire idea of this "tacit agreement" is supposed to support the useful fiction that America isn't an empire, but it leads America to shirk its own duties and leads its vassals to shirk their own duties.

Except America isn't an empire. Because the nations that you claim are our vassals are not our vassals and will not act like our vassals if pressed to do so.

Well, except Japan. Japan is arguably our vassal. Hence why they're buttering up Trump, because their future existence is actually to some degree predicated on American security guarantees.

If nobody is holding up their end of the agreement, what exactly is the problem? If Europe doesn't want to help the US with its egg shortage, what's the big deal if the US doesn't want to help Europe with their artillery shortage?

What's there to be upset about when everyone's abandoning an unspoken agreement that seemingly never existed to begin with? What exactly is being abandoned and why should I care?

American decline and European decline. No loyalty to the American empire because even its very existence is denied. Endless quagmires like the Middle East caused by the ambiguity of America's role on the global stage, and because neither non-intervention nor subjugation are options on the table. The mandate is easily exploited by small groups of influential lobbyists because there's no real underlying direction or imperial identity.

Well, given that the US has never seemed to have any luck imposing its will over its "vassals", it isn't clear to me that the American empire is or ever was.

Pretty much this. Does SS wish the "American Empire" was a real thing? It seems to me that the current tension between the US and the EU boils down to the fact that the alliance of old was forged to create a united front against the Soviets. The Soviets are no more, and with them, an enemy that the "free world" could stand against. Nowadays, we just have a broad, semi-vague "axis of evil" of clear, yet not overt rivals. I think the only remarkable thing is that it has taken so long for the US-Europe alliance to fracture once the USSR was a thing of the past.

A key part of vassalage is providing troops for the lord.

In that case though wouldn't the "something wrong" that Europe did be violating their status as vassals? From refusing to stand with the coalition of the willing in the Bush administration to their frosty/hostile reactions to Trump to their overall attitude towards America they have been increasingly acting like independent states with their own priorities and not as vassals. And to be clear, I think that is a good thing. They are not vassals, they should not act like it. But if they do act like vassals then US aid is part of a deal and that's fine, if they don't then US aid is charity. And you are entitled to your side of a deal but not to charity.

Aren't you mixing up two very different time periods? After the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR fell apart, sure, everyone was happy to let Germany disarm. But everyone disarmed then, including the US and Russia. It was a very happy time. God I miss the 90s.

In the 50s, when NATO first formed, West Germany was one of the first to join and one of its most important members. It had a national draft, high military spending, and most wargames assumed that an active WW3 would be fought mostly on West German land. It also included many ex-Naxis among its ranks, since... where else would you get people with military experience at that time? The US and everyone else was just fine with that in the name of expediency.

The FRG / West Germany has also never been able to fight her own battles in the sense that it has never been capable of waging war as a sovereign nation and has never been intended to do so, as it was formed by uniting mere military occupation zones that were under direct or (in the case of British and French zones) indirect US control – that is all the source of whatever legitimacy she ever had. You’re correct: there were times when her army had a higher level of readiness, a bigger slice of available budget and a bigger arsenal than today. But it was still only ever going to be deployed when and where the White House decided.

Prompt: what is it that makes Israel worthy of the friendship of the US whereas NATO is worthy of relegation given both would pull it into wars of choice half way around the world of no strategic importance?

Your premise is incorrect: America has no mutual defence clause with Israel, meaning that unlike NATO, it would not be pulled into a war involving Israel (compare Iran launching rockets at Israel to them hypothetically launching rockets at Germany, who would be within their rights to invoke article 5 and draw the US into a direct conflict with Iran).

It also helps that Israel's enemies also have a habit of chanting "Death to America" and have frequently killed American servicemen over the past several decades.

Follow-up: should Israel be the 51st state?

Only if you actually want the US to be directly involved in "wars of choice half way around the world of no strategic importance" given the sudden spike in numbers of new US citizens being fired at by terrorists.

It also helps that Israel's enemies also have a habit of chanting "Death to America" and have frequently killed American servicemen over the past several decades.

While in general I agree with your point, I'd point out that there's likely a reversed cause and effect here. America doesn't support Israel because its enemies chant "Death to America", Israel's enemies chant "Death to America" because America supports Israel.

Assuming you’re referring to Iran, we’ve been enemies since the Persian revolution, due to the events that took place therein, and it doesn’t take ‘Israel’ to explain why a group claiming to be socialist and overthrowing a U.S. backed monarchy would be anti American.

Israel is not the entirety of the reason for all of the hatred of America, especially not for Iran which as you point out has separate beef with the US, but it's surely the main reason every Muslim in the middle east's default opinion of the US is negative, why it's easy for Iran to cultivate allies in the region, etc...

Israel's enemies chant "Death to America" because America supports Israel.

That's one of, but far from the only reason much of the Muslim world hates America, and a common talking point among IDS afflicted people who like to claim that if it weren't for Israel then there'd be no conflict in the ME, ever (not that I'm accusing you of this). Arab antipathy towards the west can be seen as far back as the early cold war, such as during the Suez crisis and in the general orientation of the region towards the Soviet Union years before the US began its relationship with Israel. The current Iranian regime's antipathy towards the US is substantially greater than towards Israel, who it opposes largely because of its alliance with the US.

The current Iranian regime's antipathy towards the US is substantially greater than towards Israel, who it opposes largely because of its alliance with the US.

Right, to Iran, the US is the Great Satan and Israel is the Little Satan. Obviously there's history there -- the US opposed the revolution and supported the Shah -- but it's not about Israel.

This may be entirely true, and yet enemies are enemies, whatever the reason. Mistake theory avails you nothing when the other side is already committed to conflict.

  1. Maga is a coalition of various groups Trump has managed to get onboard by promising them various things. He has an issue that he has Tulsi Gabbard, America first nationalists and voters who have nothing to gain from warmongering in the middle east in the same coalition as Israel-first jews. They are at odds with each other.

  2. Bombing countries to fight insurgencies doesn't work. Laos was bombed harder than any country in WWII with little effect. Afghanistan was bombed relentlessly for 20 years with US troops on the ground coordinating the fire. Bombing Yemen is not going to be more effective than bombing the taliban was.

Afghanistan was bombed relentlessly for 20 years

That was more about justifying military spending, if they really wanted to end Afghanistan they could have, easily.

And how would they do that?

Bombing Yemen is not going to be more effective than bombing the taliban was.

Bombing Hanoi got the job done to bring them to their knees. Just no one had the balls to follow Kissinger's directions anymore.

Bombing works quite well. Just bomb things that are really flammable. Hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels. Fertilizer stocks. Tank cars and trucks.

what is it that makes Israel worthy of the friendship of the US whereas NATO is worthy of relegation

I understand that users here tend to be particularly stupid when it comes to anything involving jews, but the simple answer is that unlike the Germans, the Isrealis pay thier bills and have actually managed to win a war in the last century.

Also Ukraine just costs a lot more. America has sent more aid to Ukraine in 2 years than it has sent to Israel in the last 30. Ukraine has gotten as much aid in 2 years as Afghanistan got in two decades. And that’s just from the United States, not counting what Ukraine is getting from Europe.

The numbers are actually pretty close. US aid to Israel is about 4 billion USD per year, so "in the last 30 years" is c. 120 billion (on an inflation-adjusted basis - the headline figure is lower). The total amount appropriated by Congress in Ukraine aid bills is 180-190 billion, but that includes the cost of new-for-old replacement of old weapons delivered to Ukraine - the highest estimate of the actualSo value of the aid (counting the weapons actually delivered, not the newer weapons the US is replacing them with) is 128 billion (not all of which has been spent) according to this CFR report

So given the difficulty of getting a straight answer to either question by googling, "about the same amount" seems accurate.

Just wanted to say that I appreciate the offering of actual data on a question of fact.

You're not wrong about Germany being a military underperformer, but FWIW NATO is also orders of magnitude bigger than Israel.

This is a strange statement. German armies of 1914-45 were massive military overperformers who fought much better than almost all their enemies. The problem was that they kept taking on very powerful enemies and failed to sustain the military industrial base.

This feels so obvious to point out that I suspect I'm missing your point, but here goes: The Germany of a hundred years ago is not the same as Germany today.

I understand that users here tend to be particularly stupid

I assume there is no need for me to explain why you are banned for a week.

I'm not second-guessing, just curious: Did TequilaMockingbird have a history of name-calling-type behavior? Politely claiming that discussions of Israel/Jews on The Motte are low-quality wouldn't have been against the rules, and a one-week ban for a first ban would be abnormal, so far as I know.

Isn't he obviously Hlynka? My instincts could be misleading me here, but if that's the case there's a long history of exactly this behavior way beyond the lifetime of this particular account.

I would be very surprised if this were true.

Really? How many right wingers are there on here that thoroughly dislike race & AI discourse, argue for DR3, think that online nu-rightists and leftists are the same at their core, frequently use invective against sissy intellectual elites, tend to write think pieces as top posts, and like snappy one liners as responses, especially those with certain trademark expressions like "what's the old saw"? Not to mention that the account was created in June 2024, i.e. a short time after Hlynka's ban, but frequently talks like it's been part of the wider SSC-sphere for more than a decade.

Politely claiming that discussions of Israel/Jews on The Motte are low-quality wouldn't have been against the rules,

And if that's what he did I'm sure that he wouldn't have been banned. I've made plenty of posts that would get me banned if I decided to be maximally offensive too.

Three prior warnings for antagonism, with explicitly attacking the community as an aggravating factor.

I appreciate the transparency!

Let's consider the hundreds of billions of direct US aid to Israel since 1948. Estimates of the cost for sanctioning and isolating Iran are unknown but Grok estimates the figure to be in the range of $300–$600 billion. Joseph Stiglitz estimated the cost of the Iraq war to be $3 trillion, and more conservative estimates put it around $2 trillion.

The cost of Zionism to the United States and Europe is in the many trillions of dollars, and much more than that. NATO, Ukraine, and Europe are infinitely more worthy of the loyalty of the American people than Zionism and the state of Israel, which it looks like may after all drag the United States into war with Iran.

Iran is not sanctioned entirely due to Israel- Iran and America are just enemies due to events in the Islamic revolution.

You mean '61 don't you?

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