site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   24184 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Surely the US doesn't need any more wars in the Middle East?

Israel was against the Iraq war FWIW. So there. They understood what was going to happen and it came to pass.

This is laughable, the WMD intelligence was laundered from Israel direct to the White House through a special office composed of ultra-Zionists. You can even watch Netanyahu give the hard sell directly to the American Congress on the Iraq War "taking out Saddam" in 2002! This is the exact same man influencing Trump by the way, who Trump considers to be America's greatest ally.

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran will say... the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone." Netanyahu to the Congress in 2002.

This is the man who OUR AMERICAN CONGRESS gave 58 standing ovations in his Congressional visit last year. From Grok:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received the most standing ovations in a single speech in U.S. Congressional history during his address to a joint session of Congress on July 24, 2024. According to reports, he was given 55 standing ovations throughout his one-hour speech, surpassing all previous records for a single address. This figure is notably higher than other historically significant speeches, such as those by Winston Churchill or previous addresses by Netanyahu himself.

this is laughable, the WMD intelligence was laundered from Israel direct to the White House through a special office composed of ultra-Zionists.

It was a full office of neocons, and the intel wasn't from Israelis. It was various bullshit from dodgy Arab sources being interviewed by Americans, interpreted in a maximally positive way to make the case. In addition, Americans trusted that Chalabi idiot.

Netanyahu give the hard sell directly to the American Congress on the Iraq War "taking out Saddam" in 2002! This is

He was not the prime minister of Israel at the time. Israeli officials were against it in private, although the GOI did not give a statement against it.

As The Guardian reported:

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.

The OSP absorbed this heady brew of raw intelligence, rumour and plain disinformation and made it a "product", a prodigious stream of reports with a guaranteed readership in the White House. The primary customers were Mr Cheney, Mr Libby and their closest ideological ally on the national security council, Stephen Hadley, Condoleezza Rice's deputy.

In turn, they leaked some of the claims to the press, and used others as a stick with which to beat the CIA and the state department analysts, demanding they investigate the OSP leads

Douglas Feith, on whose authority the Israelis were cleared into the Pentagon, is a Zionist Jew who co-authored the Clean Break Memo as part of an advisory group directly to Netanyahu himself. The memo calls for removing Saddam as an important objective:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

So you have Doug Feith working directly with the Likud party to provide plans for securing Israeli objectives in the Middle East. Then you get Doug Feith on the OSP, who laundered false Israeli intelligence from a clandestine office of the Israeli Prime Minister directly to the White House. Then you have Netanyahu himself giving a hard sell to the American Congress.

Israel was only 'against' the Iraq War insofar that they wanted the US to invade Iran first. The Bush admin said they'd do Iraq and Afghanistan quickly before Iran, who would similarly be a cake walk. Well, we know how that turned out. Israel still wanted the US to invade the whole Middle East (on their behalf) in the long run anyway, they just disagreed about the order.

No.

They're not utter retards, so I highly doubt they wanted US to invade Iran either because that would go very badly.

Iran is a much larger country than Iraq, it has rugged terrain, ties with Russia and China and a somewhat more technologically capable population that is fiercely nationalistic.

US might have been able to topple mullahs with a color revolution, might get lucky and Iranians do it themeselves but an inevitably brutal invasion would have resulted in people rallying to the flag and something that'd make the worst of Iraq look like a cakewalk.

This is not speculation on my part. Israel did, in fact, ask the US to invade Iran first and not Iraq.

There's various sources for this including from US officials such as Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Colin Powell. It's also stated in Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby book from memory.

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