site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17d ago (text post)   32255 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

New data from Pew on the Israel-Palestinian topic

the public’s views of Israel have turned more negative over the past three years. More than half of U.S. adults (53%) now express an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 42% in March 2022 – before the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and the ensuing Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Negative views of Israel have increased, but in a unique way according to demographics. 50% of Republican-leaning Americans under 50yo have a negative view, up from 35% in 2022. For the Dem-leaning in this age bracket, there’s been only a 3% shift toward negative views. For 50yo+ Republicans, negative views have increased by just 3% to sit at 23%; but for Dems in this age bracket, there’s been a 13% increase to 66%. Most of the shift in the public’s dislike of Israel has occurred among younger Republicans and older Democrats. This is interesting data, because there’s been an idea circulating that the shift in public perception of Israel is driven by younger minority progressives. And while that’s a big part, the data really tells us that Americans have changed their view in recent years in ways unaccounted for by demographic change, but which can be explained by the war. Because in just three years, from 2022 to 2025, we’re seeing huge shifts in regards to views on Israel while demographics have only changed slightly.

I think this shift is clear when looking at the media young people consume. Theo Von inconspicuously doing an “early life check” on the Sackler family in his interview with JD Vance; Shane Gillis on KillTony a few days ago; the popular youth streamer “iShowSpeed” refusing to talk to people if they mention they are Israeli. Pro-Israel Americans need a feasible game plan for dealing with this shift which doesn’t fall victim to the Streisand Effect. The current strategy of deporting foreign national students is bad, because the negative publicity far outweighs the tiny changes on university campuses. Zone of Interest came out in 2023, and our media reported on October 7th crimes well enough, yet these clearly didn’t move the needle on public favorability. There doesn’t appear to be any youth figure who can shift perceptions.

The current strategy of deporting foreign national students is bad, because the negative publicity far outweighs the tiny changes on university campuses.

No, the current strategy is good, because it gets rid of some commies. If it creates a blowback against Jews that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Another interesting shift is the left beginning to adopt the term "ZOG", which has long been a catchy phrase from the Far Right. The Grayzone Podcast, which is hosted by progressive Jews Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate, admitted that although they had always dismissed the term as being a ridiculous conspiracy theory, recent events have proven it to be true and they now use that term directly in their podcast.

The criticism of Israel simultaneously coming from the Left and Right from different angles is absolutely a catastrophe for Israel. Sheer hypocrisy makes no friends in the long run.

Pro-Israel Americans need a feasible game plan for dealing with this shift which doesn’t fall victim to the Streisand Effect.

It's too late, "pro-Israel America" made its own bed with its incessant hatred and abuse of its most important base of support in the entire world- White Americans. They had it perfect- they blew it, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory while they were holding all the cards. All they had to do was be benevolent towards their most important base but they couldn't do it.

It's fascinating the way people frame what things constitute facts about reality, and what things are supposed to be changeable.

This turn in public opinion was not just entirely predictable given Israel's actions, but it was undoubtedly the plan within Hamas before 10/7. Hamas was never under the impression that they were going to sweep from there to Jerusalem, they were hoping to do something so horrible that Israel would "have" to respond, Israel's response would lead to global backlash against Israel, and bring the conflict back to front of mind.

This was obvious from the word go. The goal from the beginning was to bait Israel into committing atrocities.

Why was world opinion widely treated as something changeable, while Israel's reaction wasn't? "Any country in this position would have to invade!" "You can't expect Israel to restrain itself!" "People need to realize that Israel has the right to defend itself!"

It's interesting to me that people who frame themselves as hard-nosed-unemotional-realists refuse to accept public opinion as an aspect of reality. Especially for Israel, a country that has always depended on western public opinion. I guess we need to have someone write a popular Warhammer 40k fanfic in which a grizzled commissar with some kind of cyberpunk eye patch gives a speech about sacrificing lives for public opinion gains, and then it will fit into their framing of themselves as hard-nosed-unemotional-realists.

I'm realizing that realism is just a different form of woolly headed idealism. In the same way they decry foreign policy idealists who want to see a rules based international order, they live in an imaginary world where war is the only reality and might makes right.

This was obvious from the word go. The goal from the beginning was to bait Israel into committing atrocities.

Yes. The (unlikely) path to Hamas victory is made out of dead Palestinian kids killed by Israeli bombs.

Netanyahu is basically playing into the hands of Hamas. But he is fine with that, because the long term prospects of Israel are not what he cares about. He simply cares about remaining in power. Without the threat of terrorism, few people would vote for a hardliner like him.

I disagree regarding Israel’s options in terms of domestic politics (accommodation with the Palestinians became politically impossible after the early 2000s and ‘mowing the grass’ was politically impossible after October 7th), but you are right as far as political science, certainly.

‘Realism’ is just idealism by another name. The realist has his own ideology, how can he not? To put it another way, realism is really just the purest form of small-l classical liberalism in geopolitics. Everyone is a rational game theory actor responding to incentives, everyone is actions in their own rational self interest. This is no less fictive than the ideology of the ‘rules-based international order’ - in fact it is more fictional, because proponents of the latter typically admit they actually have some kind of ideology. The realist just thinks he is a cool, casual observer, the chopper pilot on the last helicopter out of Saigon, shrugging, “it is what it is” even as he believes in so many grand myths of his own. It’s like that political compass meme, right, the radical centrist, the “grill pill” has no less complex and ideological a philosophy than the ancap or the communist of the fascist.

To go back to the subject at hand, Israel anywhere else would have failed, Israel where it is can probably never succeed. As I said before, its survival this long was improbable at the moment of its founding, it was always skating on thin ice. I don’t believe acquiescing to Palestinian demands, not in the 1970s, nor in the 1990s, not today, would save it. Like the realists, the Arabs see themselves as a martial people; they can smell weakness. Whether Israel does it by choice or at gunpoint, any concessions will only hasten its collapse.

‘mowing the grass’ was politically impossible after October 7th

  1. What does politically impossible mean? It always seems to mean something like "restraint was impossible without ending Bibi Netanyahu's political career." Which isn't something that I think we need to value all that highly in terms of impossibility. We wouldn't accept, in a wartime situation, saying "It's impossible to take that position" when what we mean is "it's impossible to take the position without suffering casualties." If Bibi isn't patriotic enough to take one for Israel, history should hold him accountable for that.

  2. In what way is this operation not just another example of mowing the grass? Even accepting the absurd maximalist goal of "eliminating Hamas;" let's imagine that Hamas ceases to be a going concern, does anyone really think we won't see a new terrorist organization form? Israel may not be mowing the grass, but they are fertilizing it.

If a violent response was necessary, it had to be done in three months. Dragging it out over multiple years has been foolish.

The current strategy of deporting foreign national students is bad, because the negative publicity far outweighs the tiny changes on university campuses.

Hard disagree on this one. The values of the managerial class are forged in universities.

Right now they learn that being a lefty edgelord and aggressively supporting Hamas means they get to break laws.

The deportations are sending a strong signal that a supportive school admins and lefty law firms can't protect them from consequences.

The negative publicity has only minor effects. The public doesn't find the students being deported as very sympathetic.

The rise of antisemitism in the last couple of years is amazing. More and more I see "my favorite Austrian painter" and similar edginess online. And the left is even worse. Not really unsurprising - the youngest person that can claim to have coherent memories of the holocaust is what - 85? And calling everything and everyone Nazi and Holocaust has diluted quite a bit the brand. On the right doesn't seem to have too much sincere bloodlust though - but probably a lot of people will fiddle while the synagogue burns.

The ADL and AIPAC, Israel's behaviour, the Syrian war, etc haven't exactly helped. Jews reached a feeling invincibility, and got arrogant, and entitled. The jewish community should reflect upon their own behaviour and why they consistently end up in conflict with everyone around them. Instead they promote conflict because an external enemy is required to keep the jewish community together.

Jews reached a feeling invincibility, and got arrogant, and entitled

That is the just the nature of the activist class (especially leftist) in the west. Not sure there is something specifically jewish about it. The ADL are obnoxious crybullies, but they are still less obnoxious crybullies than SPLC or trans activists. Or Kandi.

Can you give some examples of the rest?

Israel is a racial-supremacist national socialist state engaged in ethnic cleansing of a hated neighbor and also but whoops, the incredibly powerful jewish minority that is wildly overrepresented in positions of cultural, financial, and government power in America has been telling us for the last 80 years that all of these things are representative of the worst kind of demonic evil. Don't know how they can possibly hope to account for this issue, every attempt stokes further anger. There are lots of other factors (whoops they're triggering a racial awakening among whites!) but they cannot possibly hope to reconcile their ethnic hypocrisy that used to be hidden but is now very public.

Israel is a racial supremacist national socialist theocratic state, but they are still better than the palestinians. It's not an issue I particularly care about in either direction, but I don't understand people who aren't willing to choose the lesser of two evils. Any reasonable country in Israel's position would react similarly. If a neighboring country sent terrorists into my country, indiscriminately killed 1000 innocent people and took hostages, I would want them flattened. Israel has held back to an impressive degree. I think the fact that these attacks have been a net positive for Palestine's image is very scary. I don't want to see their behavior rewarded.

Ethnic supremacist is a reasonable criticism of Israel but ‘national socialist’ and ‘theocratic’ are absurd hyperbole.

We've just spent a little under two decades chanting "jews are white! jews are white! jews are white!" while also establishing that anyone can call anyone "Nazi" for any reason they feel like. "RETVRN" becomes harder with every passing day.

(Actually doing something about that might be advisable at this point.) (Further validating "racism is right-wing so we can't be anti-Semitic by definition" would be a very bad "something.") (Hint: there are secular people here. Who used to be friends.)

A palestinian nation would be like Jordan, a country that doesn't create much trouble and is easy to forget about. There is no Jordanian ADL, no Jordanian support to Al Nusra in Syria, no Jordians committing genocide. Israel has a unique ability to be in conflict with everyone under the sun.

Uh, do you remember what happened when Jordan had a conflict with Palestinians? And then that time Lebanon had a conflict with Palestinians? It's remarkably ahistorical to think that the Palestinians just want to be left alone and it's just that they can't get along with those Israelis.

Both those things were motivated by angry Palestinian refugees wanting to fight Israel while their host countries weren't so keen. One reason this whole situation is such a mess is that King Abdullah annexed the West Bank which was supposed to be the core of the new Palestinian state, which also happened to make Palestinians a majority of the Jordanian population. Obviously the Palestinians were more keen on attacking Israel than Jordan, especially post-67.

As for Lebanon, Israel set up a false flag terror group attempting to provoke the PLO into war during a ceasefire. They also attempted to assassinate the American ambassador to Lebanon.

Both those things were motivated by angry Palestinian refugees wanting to fight Israel while their host countries weren't so keen.

And by "refugees" you mean "guerillas". Indeed, most countries do not want you to use their territory as a staging area for antagonizing the neighbors and will tell you to cut that shit out. I fail to see how this is exculpatory for the Palestinians.

One reason this whole situation is such a mess is that King Abdullah annexed the West Bank which was supposed to be the core of the new Palestinian state, which also happened to make Palestinians a majority of the Jordanian population. Obviously the Palestinians were more keen on attacking Israel than Jordan, especially post-67.

I don't see what the Jordanian occupation has to do with explaining why the Palestinians couldn't get along with the Jordanians. The Jordanian civil war took place after Israel annexed the West Bank.

As for Lebanon, Israel set up a false flag terror group attempting to provoke the PLO into war during a ceasefire. They also attempted to assassinate the American ambassador to Lebanon.

The PLO was involved in the Lebanese civil war since 1975. Why are you bringing up events from the 80s? My point isn't that "Israel does no wrong", my point is that the Palestinians will pick a fight with anyone and everyone. Whataboutist arguments about Israel have nothing at all to do with this.

The Arabs insist on returning to 67 and not 48 borders because the Palestinian territories were administered by their neighboring co-ethnics, and the Palestinians caused endless trouble for the Egyptians and Jordanians while under their protection. The political masterstroke of the Arab world was to give the Palestinians to the Israelis without any demand of their own, leaving Israel with an eternal pustule to deal with while keeping Jordanian and Egyptian hands clean. Not that it'll matter very much, Kuwait did a nakba of 300k Palestinians and no one bats a single eyelid. Its just much funnier to the Arabs that they get to give this gift of eternal irritation to Israel while pretending to give a single shred of real support to the Palestinians. Hamas is armed by the Shia Persian infidels in Iran, not the Sunni Arab cousins just across the (heavily guarded) border.

If Israel were an independent country I'd sort of agree. They're both crap and I don't care if they all kill each other. Israel is the US elite's sugar baby though. So the more often they sabre rattle the more often daddy USA has to spend a few billion of our tax dollars to divert a carrier group to the region to take care of Bibimbo Netanyahoo and save their trade routes or what not.

We have so many carriers to keep global trade routes open regardless, it’s not because Israel that we take a dim view of Houthi behavior.

That was the view during the old failed historic post cold-war order. That order failed rapidly. Now we take a dim view of spending our money to play world police.

Israel would not be interested in nuking America and Western Europe even if it had the power to do so with impunity. Hamas absolutely would. That's reason enough to support one over the other even if you take a very negative view of the Israel/US relationship. Better the obnoxious moocher than the psychotic murderer who hates your guts. Like, obviously. It's not even a question.

Why is it that Hamas is unhappy with North America and Europe? Because these are the people who've been propping up Israel.

North Korea has nukes and hasn't used them. Pakistan hasn't used theirs against India. If those two have managed to avoid nuclear war I really don't find the hamas or Iran suicide argument that compelling. Even if they were they'd nuke Israel and get obliterated in return before they went for the US anyways.

You've misread me. I said, if they had the power to nuke America with impunity. This isn't about nukes qua nukes. My point is simpler than that. When Side A ideally wants me to pay all its bills, and Side B ideally wants my entire civilization blown to atoms, I know who I'm siding with. "They're both crap and I don't care if they all kill each other" doesn't cut it, it's apples to oranges. Israel is an ordinary foreign nation acting out of ordinary self-interest, Hamas is representative of a festering ideological blight on humanity.

ah yeah, I didn't realize you were reducing them to black and white. That I don't agree with at all, they both suck.

Not black and white. But black and grey.

Better the obnoxious moocher

I would be more inclined to accept Israel as the North Korea of the west if the west wasn't ruled by ethnic Israeli's.

The west is not ruled by ethnic Israelis(unless you’re talking about the Palestinians who rule Latin America)- in the United States, left wing admins are split between ethnic Israelis and black women, and right wing administrations are dominated by conservative Catholics. In other locales it’s usually the locals that rule.

right wing administrations are dominated by conservative Catholics

Catholics? Really? Not protestants/evangelicals?

Evangelicals produce some high-human capital people, but they tend not to accumulate the specific skill sets necessary to go into government.

The only protestant currently on the supreme Court is Jackson, for example. And there were none at all for some years before her.

More comments

To say nothing of course about economic and cultural tools of control.

(unless you’re talking about the Palestinians who rule Latin America)

La Presidente Sheinbaum appears to have both Ashkenazi and Sephardi background, but no Palestinian or Israeli. She apparently does have a good relationship with Carlos Slim, but his background is Lebanese Christian (Maronite), not Palestinian Muslim.

I do not think responding "they took N our people as hostages" with "let's spend 5*N our soldiers to kill 50*N their people" is particularly sane answer. In part, it's due to that Israeli PM faces criminal prosecution and could get in prison if war is stopped.

It's the Chicago way. Also the American way ("millions for defense, not one cent in tribute")

Would you have been advocating for peace with Japan on December 8 1941? Is a military campaign which resulted in the deaths of half a million Japanese civilians a sane answer to a surprise attack which killed 2,500 sailors?

Japan did not take any hostages at Dec 8 and was already actively involved in wars in Asia Israel could have responded just with eliminating leadership and point attacks rather than surface attack.

It's sane insofar that it's human nature. Trite example but America was guilty of such a reaction after 9/11.

America's reaction to 9/11 may be currently crashing the country into a giant wall...

The Israelis lost a lot fewer soldiers than 5x the 10/7 casualties.

I was talking about hostages, not 10/7 casualties. The latter could not be saved, but freeing the former was one of proclaimed goals.

but I don't understand people who aren't willing to choose the lesser of two evils

What is the argument for the need to make a choice? Does the US pay much attention to the war between Congo and Rwanda (despite clearly laying blame on one side)? Actually have you even heard of it?

Any reasonable country in Israel's position would react similarly.

No, not at all. Or only on the crudest level of analysis. There is no way to argue that Israeli policy is the only reasonable response, not even Israelis would say that. There are many possible options. Eg China has shown its take on the situation, in Xinjiang.

Eg China has shown its take on the situation, in Xinjiang.

Few things would get the Sunni Arabs to give in to their peoples and throw everything at Israel for a third time, but forcibly re-educating Muslims away from their traditions would be one of them. That’s far, far more politically sensitive that what Israel is doing in Gaza.

What is the argument for the need to make a choice? Does the US pay much attention to the war between Congo and Rwanda (despite clearly laying blame on one side)? Actually have you even heard of it?

The world makes us make a choice. At the outset, I dont think many people actually believe the theory that if we withdrew support for Israel Islamists would stop hating America and planning to attack America. Those who do genuinely believe that, I think are very wrong, childishly so IMO. So there is little benefit to ignoring the situation.

Plus, Europe isn't going to ignore it, they are going to keep funding the terrorists with UNRWA and other similar orgs. Iran isn't going to ignore it. It would be more plausible for us to ignore Ukraine v. Russia. Russia is at least a dwindling threat based on basically every metric. Islamism is right behind China in the global threat race. They have the bodies, they have a motivating ideology, they have a plan, even if it is chaotic and without a centralized leader.

No, not at all. Or only on the crudest level of analysis. There is no way to argue that Israeli policy is the only reasonable response, not even Israelis would say that. There are many possible options. Eg China has shown its take on the situation, in Xinjiang.

I don't see how this compares favorably to the Israeli response in Gaza. The Uyghurs live under martial law (controlled from Beijing) and the central government is enacting an ethnic replacement plan. They also are more geographically isolated from the rest of China compared to Gaza/West Bank and Israel, otherwise China's program would be even more aggressive. The Uyghurs have no outside patrons, and the reporting is several orders of magnitude less aggressive. Overall, not a model that Israel can follow.

The problem is that you consume too much neocon/Zionist propaganda from trash like Zenz. The reporting bias may actually run in the other direction. Xinjiang today is peaceful and Uighurs are beneficiaries of strong labor laws and affirmative action. Western tourists can visit it, Americans marry Uighur people, economy is booming, infrastructure is being built… Uighurs are still the majority and will likely remain the majority because there's a finite and dwindling supply of Han people in China. Whatever has happened there during the heavy enforcement and «reeducation» period, has ended with a state of affairs both parties can at least survive without bloodshed. This is not an endorsement of what has been done. This is a point of comparison.

Meanwhile Gaza is a smoldering ruin with casualties on par with Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel is negotiating for a thorough ethnic cleansing, while the fighting goes on.

No matter how you look at it, Israelis have been extraordinarily brutal and inefficient at that. It's like saying Russia has shown exemplary discipline in Chechnya, any nation would do the same in its position. No we haven't, it was a shitshow (and ended in humiliation of handing it over to Kadyrov).

Meanwhile Gaza is a smoldering ruin with casualties on par with Russia-Ukraine war,

I thought it's significantly worse than the Russia-Ukraine war?

If you mean civilians only, then yes. But according to the US and Israel messaging, Palestinians are ontologically incapable of being civilians, so it's a wash.

they have a plan

what is it?

Its been described many places. Essentially, it is to move to the West and live in densely Muslim communities. Then use it own Democratic processes and civil rights laws against us to demand local Sharia. Expand, seize Peter when available, etc. Eventually a full scale re-enactment of the 8th century, but this time with locally entrenched allies.

seize Peter when available

I'm not sure whether it's worse that they want to seize our Peter, or that Peter isn't even available at all times.

Hey man, sometimes we're tired alright

What is the argument for the need to make a choice?

I think setting a precedent against hostage-taking and indiscriminate killing at music festivals is a good idea. I don't necessarily think the US should take sides in the object-level issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I don't like Palestine getting away with doing a terrorist attack and then successfully reframing itself as the victim within a matter of days, like what seemed to happen after October 7th. Obviously what's happening to the Palestinians now is awful, but they brought it upon themselves. It's a natural consequence of their actions in choosing Hamas as their government. If someone is going to suffer for that choice, it should be the Palestinians, not people in surrounding countries.

Israel is a racial supremacist national socialist theocratic state, but they are still better than the palestinians.

Perhaps so, but not enough better to be worth my support. There are no good guys in this particular conflict.

The problem for pro-Israel propagandists is that their position has only ever been tenable in an environment of bipartisan censorship and the election of Trump destroyed the tools of effective censorship. Obviously the association of Trump and Netanyahu hurts boomer lib support for Israel but at the same time his pivot to social media totally discredited all of the traditional gatekeepers on the right. Israel supporters have always been reliant on the exact same weapons as the "woke" and when they're deprived of those weapons they flounder against the most basic opposition from their right.

Case in point: Douglas Murray, supposedly one of the sharpest champions of the pro-Zionist position debated Dave Smith on Rogan and was reduced to making 2020 level arguments about "trusting the experts". The comment section is an absolute bloodbath, and this between probably the best champion the pro-Israel side has (among Rogan regulars, anyway) and a comedian.

I seek to persuade

You try to convince

They propagandize

Murray was literally shuttled in to Gaza by the IDF and spent over 3 hours on Rogan refusing to make the slightest criticism of Israel, if he isn't a "propagandist" then I'm not sure who is

Pro-Israel Americans need a feasible game plan for dealing with this shift which doesn’t fall victim to the Streisand Effect

How likely today is the return of North America to the American natives? Outside of awkward land acknowledgements at Canadian universities, nobody even seems to care. The issue is settled, the settlers won, the natives herded to small corners of some of the worst land in the country and left to rot away from alcoholism. A German-Scot is in charge.

The only way to ensure Israel’s survival in the long term is an end to the Palestinian issue. Even if approval of Israel drops to just 10% for a time, the more time passes since the end of the issue, the less people (even other Muslims) will care. Netanyahu’s biggest mistake in Gaza was that he killed 50,000 over 18 months. If he had killed 200,000 over 18 hours he would not have faced half as much opprobrium.

With every passing year that the conflict continues, easy fodder for Muslims, leftists and rightist antisemites, Israel’s collapse and failure becomes more likely. The only viable plan for any effective Zionist to support is one that opposes the status quo of 1973-2023. (By the way, as a Jew sympathetic to Zionism, I consider Israel’s survival unlikely in the medium term).

How likely today is the return of North America to the American natives?

you mean giving all the Palestinians citizenship + reserves + the complete freedom of movement?

The only way to ensure Israel’s survival in the long term is an end to the Palestinian issue.

Israel was a giant mistake and should end similarly to French Algeria. The French were their for a century, it wasn't sustainable and they left.

If he had killed 200,000 over 18 hours he would not have faced half as much opprobrium.

A completely genocidal country that is sees murdering people fast as a way to get away with it is going to be an enemy of everyone around them.

Israel was a giant mistake and should end similarly to French Algeria. The French were their for a century, it wasn't sustainable and they left.

You think they should return to Poland, Yemen, Egypt and Iraq?

The Pieds Noirs could return from French Algeria to their homeland. The majority of Israelis have no other homeland.

you mean giving all the Palestinians citizenship + reserves + the complete freedom of movement?

…after they become ~2% of the total population, sure.

If he had killed 200,000 over 18 hours he would not have faced half as much opprobrium.

I think he would have faced more. 200,000 in 18 hours is a WW2-scale or third world-scale mass killing, and not only would it be impossible to hide it, given modern communications technology, but also it would be impossible to make a widely accepted argument that this is a proportional response to 10/7. With 50,000 over 18 months, on the other hand, it is possible to make a widely accepted (though of course, very controversial) argument that it is a proportional response to 10/7, given Hamas hiding among civilians and so on.

I consider Israel’s survival unlikely in the medium term

Can you elaborate on why?

They will likely soon face South Africa style trade sanctions from Europe. The Islamic world will continue its aggression. American progressives will eventually follow Europe and then it will be one of the smallest countries in the world with no way to import essential goods. If the world was merely neutral, it would be fine. It is already heavily anti-Israel. Once it goes to full boycott it wont matter that a well supplied Israeli army could conquer all of its neighboring countries simultaneously. Because they wont be well supplied, they will be with no steel, petrol, powder, etc. It will be a race to the boats.

Sanctions didn’t bring down South Africa, fertility differentials and guerrilla warfare did.

Those other things are easily overcome with proper military and police force applied.

Don't know enough about SA, but sanctions absolutely played a major role in the fall of Rhodesia from what I recall from Ian Smith's memoirs. In particular the loss of Portuguese support following the end of Salazar's government (meaning Mozambique could now be used as a safe base of operations from rebels) and loss of South African support after Operation Eland (when the Rhodies decided to go after Mozambique-based rebels anyways and the rebels were able to falsely portray it as a brutal massacre of innocent refugees).

But Rhodesian whites were such a small minority that it’s not a good basis of comparison for… anything.

Sure, but despite their small percentage they were absolutely dominating the insurgents in guerilla warfare. The Rhodesian Bush War was arguably the most successful counter-insurgency ever, or at least in modern warfare.

I'm assuming the riffs on "who now remembers the genocide of the Armenians" is fully intentional? ;)

I think it’s a thought more like the natives in the Americas, or most other similar wars. They used to be fought to completion and capitulation— basically until the losing side would understand that not only can they never win, but that even attempting this will do nothing to the enemy but mean decimated populations for that losing side. This is simply the natural order of human civilization as it happed from time immemorial. What happened to the Hittites? They were eventually conquered and absorbed into the Assyrian empire that eventually was itself absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. Those who were once a big empire are now assimilated to the point that they no longer exist as a people.

And especially with Israel — a small state about the size of New Jersey — I see capitulation as the only real answer as there’s just not enough room for two states to exist next to each other with no friction. That’s assuming a two-state solution in which all sides want to get along, which isn’t true. Put two armed camps next to each other and you not only get the region at war constantly, but the fallout of those wars causing political instability in other countries. If Palestine became obviously untenable with the only options being either leaving the region or assimilation into Israeli society as Arab Israelis, the entire thing will eventually settle down. Being a Palestinian Israeli will be perhaps a cultural affiliation, but it will be reduced to dances, food, the practice of Islam, etc. much like Souix still exist and accept that they exist only as a cultural enclave kept alive via song, dance, story, foods, and religion, but with no hope of a country of their own.

This is just a new round of elderly Dems imitating the radicalism of younger demos without really understanding it, as we saw with BLM. Most of the political (and entertainment) media boomer dems consume is designed to sanewash radical ideas into their existing worldview, using the "spectrum of allies" concept to activate and exploit them without requiring total ideological commitment.

The left is incredibly good at doing this, like with "abolish the police." They recruited grandmas who wanted attention, and kept them in their own separate unit with a command structure and propaganda line tuned specifically for using them as passive interference for militant units. They didn't have to be chanting "fry piggy fry" for them to be useful to the movement, they just had to be pushed one step to the left..

Coordinating this stuff is masterful work. The left can have a Quaker widows' group at protests with "Israel should be nicer!" banners, actively working alongside revcom Molotov throwers with "death to amerikkka glory to the martyrs" banners, and the people involved are so cleanly ideologically managed by their organizers that they don't even notice any contradictions in the different units' party lines.
A lot has been made of demands for "ideological purity" on the left, but imo this completely misses the mark. There is no "universal leftist consensus," and different groups are quite explicitly given different and conflicting party lines. What matters is following the line of your particular unit, because the purpose of ideology to the leftist isn't being true, but being useful for social control. That's the fundamental lesson of the critical theorists, if you actually read them, and why all their papers are about things like "overcoming student resistance to Change Narratives to nurture activism in the classroom."

I talk to quite a few "Daily Kos grandmas," and they're fascinating to listen to. They have no memory of what they used to believe or interest in what they may come to believe, only a sort of endless present of affirmation and social discipline crafted to maximize their donations to radical groups.
They don't actually "believe" in making Israel judenfrei from the river to the sea, just like they didn't actually believe in abolishing the police in 2020. But the echo chamber keeps them in that familiar permanent superposition on the topic, where they're actively pressured to avoid thinking beyond vague and shifting party lines.

One of the schism mods wrote something about being part of a Quaker team at some leftist protest that was a really interesting read, I'll see if I can find it. IIRC it was the "death to terfs" contingent that made her notice something was off.

I talk to quite a few "Daily Kos grandmas," and they're fascinating to listen to. They have no memory of what they used to believe or interest in what they may come to believe, only a sort of endless present of affirmation and social discipline crafted to maximize their donations to radical groups.

Orwell really had the normies pegged. The sheep switching from "Four legs good, two legs bad!" to "Four legs good, two legs better!" in Animal Farm and the party members not noticing the change from Oceania being at war with Eurasia to Oceania being at war with Eastasia in 1984 probably struck a lot of us as an unrealistic caricature, but, no, that is genuinely what normal people are like.

Or, as the Dreaded Jim put it:

Ninety nine percent of the people The Cominator wants to kill change their beliefs when official beliefs change, and never notice that their beliefs have changed. When we are in power, they will believe what we believe, and never remember ever having believed anything different.

Or, as the Dreaded Jim put it

The fact that this essay starts with the phrase "Democracy died on 2020-11-04", which is almost comically inaccurate, as Trump's election makes clear, makes me dubious about the author's skills as a political observer.

I have a vague sense that this "Dreaded Jim" person is internet-famous as some kind of troll or lolcow.

This was an entertaining polemic, but you know, I could say the same thing about most broad political alliances, including those on the right. Now and then some Republicans will notice the cracks between atheist libertarians who want to legalize weed and don't have a problem with gay marriage but really hate taxes and foreigners, traditional American family values patriots, Jewish neocons who are pro-Israel and American empire, and the evangelical contingent who mostly want to ban abortion. But all will rally (somewhat uneasily) under the banner of a Reagan or (now) a Trump, and some will forget that five minutes ago family values and the Constitution were very important to them, and they'll all pretend they don't know the Andrew Tates and Repeal the 19th weirdos, let alone the ethnats. I know this is your conviction, that lefties are uniquely programmed and NPCed and just take marching orders from Leftism Central, but this is actually how all political machines work. The vast majority of all movements are divided into a tiny handful of True Believers, an even tinier handful of actual movers and shakers, and the vast herd who just sort of gets caught up in whatever tugs hardest on their sentiments.

I'll once again bang my "Read American history" drum. Machine politics in the 19th century were really something else (and yet also, extremely familiar). The Whigs (a coalition that really had nothing in common beyond hating Andrew Jackson, and eventually fell apart because you can only keep slaveowners and abolitionists together in one party for so long) are an illustrative lesson in political movements that incoherent if you stop to think about them for five minutes and yet persisted long enough to elect several presidents.

Your story about "Daily Kos grandmas" who literally don't remember what they used to believe in is of course nonsense (just like all those Never Trumpers who are now MAGAs do, in fact, remember what they used to believe in). People remember, they just rationalize it or else they develop coping mechanisms for the cognitive dissonance.

Your story about "Daily Kos grandmas" who literally don't remember what they used to believe in is of course nonsense (just like all those Never Trumpers who are now MAGAs do, in fact, remember what they used to believe in). People remember, they just rationalize it or else they develop coping mechanisms for the cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure this is the case. The one that sticks out to me the most is the initial response to COVID. So many people don't remember the early days where believing in COVID was racist and bad. They just swapped back and if you try and remind them now you'll get a lot of "holy shit I forgot about that" or "no way!!!!!!"

A lot of people literally don’t believe they ever took Covid as a crisis.

Hmm. I only vaguely remember something like that. I didn't pay much attention to American media at the time.

Is it possible that that energy got transferred to "lab leak is racist" in the shitlib subconscious somehow?

I mean I'm sure not everyone did this but my cohort of family and professional contacts which is typically smart, educated, but not particularly politically informed or calibrated do this a lot in general and VERY STRONGLY not his particular topic.

and VERY STRONGLY not his particular topic.

Huh? Rephrase please?

calibrated do this a lot in general and VERY STRONGLY not his particular topic.

calibrated do this a lot in general and VERY STRONGLY not (on t)his particular topic.

aka covid broke people's brains + me making typos

Probably some people have forgotten when COVID was a racist conspiracy theory, just like some people have forgotten when they thought the vaccines were awesome and avoiding unnecessary public contact seemed reasonable. In general, though, I don't believe people actually download new updates and wipe the old ones. To the degree that some people are that, shall we say, malleable, I very much do not believe it's a left or right thing. Some people blow with the wind.

I very much do not believe it's a left or right thing. Some people blow with the wind.

Oh yeah for sure, not saying one side has a monopoly on this. The leftist-doublethink seems to magnify though. "No not literally defund the police" "wait yes literally" "no that's ridiculous."

Hug an asian, plus the whole song and dance about how wanting to restrict travel to/from China durring the lunar new-year (feb-mar 2020) is totally proof of how racist and out-of-touch Trump and his supporters are.

Republican boomers don't march next to atomwaffenfront or "put their white bodies on the line to protect brave young people doing Direct Action." The right doesn't have the organization or ideological discipline to use confused and wishy washy boomers as pawns.

When they con the elderly into sending them a bunch of money, it gets funneled to merch scammers rather than paying professional activists. You don't see leftist boomers buying AI generated commemorative trump collectible NFT digital-colloidal-silver coins like all the old Republicans are. They write checks to the ActBlue Progress Fund For Doing Progress that sends the money on to "Unicorn Riot", and it gets matched by a billionaire.

And you'll notice that old right wingers objectively haven't suddenly had their minds changed for them, so politics is obviously working rather differently on the two sides. There is no Republican activist group getting piles of cash to teach other activists how to "diagram systems of power for strategies of intervention"

Because Israel on the right ranges from ‘go Israel!’ To ‘I don’t care’. It’s kinda difficult to convert people to ‘I don’t care’.

Republican boomers don't march next to atomwaffenfront or "put their white bodies on the line to protect brave young people doing Direct Action." The right doesn't have the organization or ideological discipline to use confused and wishy washy boomers as pawns.

That is mostly because the Republicans don't normally use marches and demos as a political tactic. (They work much better for movements with an urban base.) The last time they did was on Jan 6th 2021, and there were absolutely Republican boomers protesting peacefully on the Ellipse and Capitol lawn while Proud Boys and groypers were ransacking Nancy Pelosi's office.

Odd to talk about Republicans having consistent ideological positions during Tariff Week.

I don't know when any atomwaffenfront have marched in the US, but we've certainly had brownshirts, Klansmen, groypers, and whoever else is the rightist equivalent of "Globalize the Intifada" keffiya-wearers and tankies in Mao t-shirts, and Democratic boomers don't really march with them either.

You're just describing a difference in medium and frequency of the message. Republican activist groups with piles of money certainly exist, albeit not so much in academia. That you think LibsOfTikTok, TPUSA, and Project Veritas style "owning" is more credible and genuine just means they are on your side and leftist activists are not. Why is writing checks for ActBlue more unserious than buying TrumpCoins? Why is George Soros an archvillain but the Koch brothers were a cringeworthy leftist bogeyman and Elon Musk is just a buddy of the President? (If George Soros was handing out checks to people who showed up to vote in a state election, I cannot imagine your reaction being anything other than apoplectic.)

I don't see many people suddenly having their minds changed for them- I see a lot of leftists taking seriously trendy new ideas like men becoming women, but as I said, this seems no different than MAGAs who are all-in on Trump doing things they'd have considered abhorrent and un-American a few years ago (and some of whom were even Never Trumpers!).

They are the same picture.

What the right might lack in organization or ideological discipline they make up for in ideological consistency. The reason you dont see republican boomers marching with Nazis is that republican boomers tend to be the sort of boomer that would rather bayonet a Nazi than march with them.

What you see as a weakness (a disinclination towards doublethink) I see as a strength.

One of the schism mods wrote something about being part of a Quaker team at some leftist protest that was a really interesting read, I'll see if I can find it. IIRC it was the "death to terfs" contingent that made her notice something was off.

If you can find it I’d be interested.

Zone of Interest came out in 2023, and our media reported on October 7th crimes well enough, yet these clearly didn’t move the needle on public favorability. There doesn’t appear to be any youth figure who can shift perceptions.

The problem with publicizing vicious terrorist murders in an attempt to lower popularity of one side of a conflict, is that the target demographic doesn't like the other side, and is openly in favor of vicious terrorist murder against people they don't like.

I don't endorse it, but decapitation strikes against specific people in power seem like a different thing from "vicious terrorist murder". Mangione would have a lot fewer supporters if he'd disemboweled the CEO's entire family as opposed to 'just' killing the specific guy. Fantasies about assassinating Trump are even further from "terrorism" - they stem from a belief that Trump is uniquely bad and killing him, specifically, will save the country. It's not about terror tactics to frighten off the rest of the outgroup.

Mangione would have a lot fewer supporters if he'd disemboweled the CEO's entire family as opposed to 'just' killing the specific guy.

Support for the Palestinians does not seem to have been diminished by the Gazans murdering indiscriminately. Trump's attempted assassin killing and wounding random bystanders didn't seem to make a dent in the calculus. Danielson was a rando, and his murder was openly celebrated, and his killer received significant support. Rittenhouse and Gardner were randos; that did not help them.

Those who count on ideological consistency to keep a lid on lawless violence are setting themselves up for disappointment. Humans like harming the outgroup, and are very good at rationalization.

Humans like harming the outgroup, and are very good at rationalization.

That they are. But mark the difference. Clean assassinations targeting Bad People(TM) is what people are openly in favor of. "Vicious terrorist murder" like Oct 7 will certainly be rationalized away or swept under the rug completely - but it's not openly endorsed.

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