site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17d ago (text post)   32261 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.

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.

Gorsuch is also a Protestant, although neither are evangelical.

Oh interesting, wikipedia listed him as "Anglicanism/Catholicism," which I just rounded off to popery of the "I just go for the incense, honest!" type

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.

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