site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel can do all of those wonderful without encroaching on Palestinian territory, tearing down their homes to make space for Israeli settlers. You are presenting a false dichotomy in which Israel must relentlessly expand into the West Bank, or give up its modernity and first-world characteristics.

The Palestinians could also refrain from indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population centers. Or the gangrape.

Let's call it even?

But I need not give them a blank check to do whatever they like. Israel does not need to build settlements in the West Bank to keep their country safe - just the opposite; these settlements create enmity among the Palestinians, and prevent reconciliation.

My check isn't blank either, but it has room for quite a few zeroes on it.

When we zoom out and look at the broader picture, it is the Israeli side that has, in the last few decades, committed more infringements.

While I am of the opinion that historical grievances beyond living memory, or at least the memory of octogenarians, should be buried, a few decades seems like a rather early cut-off. The fact that the Palestinians don't do worse is reflective of their incapacity to do so, not a lack of desire for the same, or else they wouldn't be cheering at the sight of a hot blonde Israeli woman dead with blood and shit on her genitals.

Israel, on the other hand, has both means and motive, so I can give them points for being quite polite about things, for the most part.

Israel, on the other hand, has both means and motive, so I can give them points for being quite polite about things, for the most part.

Actually, I don't think they do have the means. If they actually did just go and ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip they would lose substantial amounts of the international support they require to continue to exist. Israel is only sustainable at all due to massive flows of materiel from the West, and while their consent manufacturing/influence operations are incredibly powerful, they are still ultimately subject to a public opinion which would come down extremely hard if they just started a second holocaust and wiped out the muslims.

Israel gets about $3 billion in aid from the USA per year. Their defence budget is $23 billion.

It's an exaggeration to say they can't exist without western support.

This is such a strange take. The US set up client states in Jordan and Egypt to stop them from attacking Israel. It finances half the Lebanese political factions for this purpose (and even Hezbollah!). The entire Iraq war (2-3 TRILLION dollars depending on calculation methods) realistically had no other purpose than to eliminate a regime Israel wanted gone. It still stations around 30.000 soldiers around Middle East, with realistically no other purpose than to deter anyone who might want to mess with Israel. Almost any random deal US sponsors around the world will include some small ridiculous clauses to give Israel a bit more diplomatic legitimacy. US is unable to normalize relations with Iran, even though this would make a great amount of geopolitical sense, because Israel doesn't want it.

The list can go on and on. And I am not getting into items like the French giving Israel nuclear arms technology or massive sums of blood money West Germany paid for Israel's industrialization.

The 3 billion direct military aid is absolutely nothing compared to what America and Europe actually provides to Israel.

The Iraq War was because American intelligence thought there really were WMDs and because Saddam had previously lied about them and aroused America's displeasure.

That 3 billion is far from the only support that Israel gets from the west. They benefit from the military activities of the USA, the countless remittances to Israel and Israeli support initiatives run by Israeli partisans in other societies around the world. Significant investments and factories were built there not because it made good economic sense for the companies involved, but because the people in those companies wanted to support Israel. Even in my country, I can't go shopping at a major shopping mall without having some portion of the money I spend go to Israel, because the owner of the company is (or was, I haven't checked in a while) a zealous supporter of Israel and the IDF.

I don't believe you're thinking seriously about the issue at all if you think that $3 billion figure is the be-all and end-all of Western support for Israel.

countless remittances

0.28% of Israeli GDP.

"Countless" is a fun word, you can use it to make a number sound like it's really big when actually you just haven't bothered counting.

Yes, you've pointed out that one of the sources of western contribution to Israeli welfare isn't that large a portion of their GDP. I didn't really expect remittances to be much more than that - I said countless because those remittances would usually consist of large numbers of smaller payments. Furthermore, look at the definition that your source is using - this only counts money being sent back by Israelis who migrate to other countries. A jewish individual raised in France who sent money to pro-Jewish charity organisations would not show up on this chart according to the methodology listed there - but even if not, that doesn't really hurt my argument. 0.28% of GDP might not sound like much, but that stuff adds up over the years, and consistent financial support like that can make a big difference over time... to say nothing of all the other factors I named and which weren't refuted.

If that's the extent of your argument against my position I must confess that my mind has not been changed.

Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. You didn't come to your opinion by data, so data won't dissuade you from it. I'm just helpfully pointing out that you're wrong, for the benefit of other readers.

And yes, 0.28% of GDP is not nothing, and if you add that to the aid and other benefits it adds up to something real... but it's not the difference between existence and nonexistence.

Oh, I'm not trying to change your mind. You didn't come to your opinion by data, so data won't dissuade you from it.

Actually, I came to my opinion through reading an essay discussing the historical parallels between Israel and Outremer. Data played a part in that but not exclusively so - and I'll provide a quote from the essay that had the single greatest impact on my opinion on this topic.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-11-21/in-the-twilight-of-empires/

To begin with, Israel, as Outremer did in its time, depends for its survival on very large subsidies from the major Western powers. In the case of Israel, those mostly come from the United States. The US government spends many billions of dollars a year on direct and indirect aid to Israel, while America’s large and relatively wealthy Jewish community—which comprises the largest number of Jews in any single nation on Earth—engages in a great deal of fundraising for Israel on its own behalf. Many synagogues and other Jewish community instititions in America serve just as effectively to channel resources to Israel as, say, the European properties and chapter houses of the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller did to keep wealth and weapons flowing to the kingdoms of Outremer. Without that aid, governmental and private, the large and well-equipped Israeli military would be far too great a burden on the economy of what is, after all, a very small and resource-poor country, and the balance of power in the region would shift dramatically to Israel’s disadvantage.

Equally, the continued fragmentation of the Middle East is a crucial factor in Israel’s survival. The last two centuries or so have seen the long rhythm of Middle Eastern history enter a diastole period, splintering the once-powerful Ottoman Empire into more than two dozen small, quarrelsome, and vulnerable nations that were generally unable to counter incursions from Europe and America. To a real extent, the current condition of the Middle East is one of waiting for the next Saladin, with Iran, Turkey, or a future Islamic Republic of Arabia likely contenders for the center around which the next Middle Eastern superstate will coalesce. Of course it’s a core principle of Israeli diplomacy and military strategy to prevent the emergence of a single center of power capable of mobilizing any large fraction of the resources of the Arab world; still, it bears remembering that this was an equally central principle of the strategy of Outremer, and the Crusaders’ efforts in this direction eventually failed.

I don’t propose to pass judgment on the current state of Israeli politics and culture, even to the extent of deciding whether current trends toward political factionalism and the support of Orthodox communities at state expense do or don’t mirror the vicious political infighting of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’s final decades and the economic burden of Christian monasteries and nunneries that played so large a role in weakening Outremer. The crucial point just now, it seems to me, is Israel’s dependence on a constant inflow of funds from the United States. If that goes away, the military balance of power shifts irrevocably, and so does the Israeli government’s capacity to afford the unproductive but politically necessary payoffs that maintain such social cohesion as there is; these shifts, in turn, promise an outcome as unwelcome to Israel, at least as currently constituted, as the equivalent was to Outremer.

I haven't seen you post anything which comes remotely close to dealing with the issues laid out here. How, exactly, will Israel pay for their military AND support the vast communities of Orthodox jews who do no real work without the help of the jewish diaspora and the American MIC? Where will the shortfall in resources come from when Israel is cut off from the US teat? You can just post that data for the sake of others, but you haven't even bothered dealing with the objections I posted! What sort of impression are you going to give to others when your response to a difficult question is to just ignore it and assume the reader will be on your side anyway?

Israel has a GDP of about half a trillion dollars. So if we're talking US aid of 3 billion, remittances of another billion, maybe another billion from other sources, that's getting us to around 1% of GDP. Let's be generous and double that.

Their GDP growth last year was 6.5%, and it averages around 4%. So entirely losing that international support theoretically might halve their growth rate. That's a kick in the teeth, but not an existential threat.

Of course if things get really dire, they can insist that the Orthodox actually work for a living. The politics don't support that outcome currently, but politics can change in response to circumstance.

More comments

The Palestinians could also refrain from indiscriminate bombardment of civilian population centers. Or the gangrape.

Israel doesn't need to build settlements to put a stop to this.

The fact that the Palestinians don't do worse is reflective of their incapacity to do so, not a lack of desire for the same, or else they wouldn't be cheering at the sight of a hot blonde Israeli woman dead with blood and shit on her genitals.

This and the rest of your arguments are all correct, but they don't refute my point. Israel has been and is continuing to provoke the Palestinians, and they do not need to do that.

Do you presume that refraining from building more settlements in contested territory is both necessary and sufficient for the animosity to end? I would have to disagree there.

Other than that, I too think you're correct, we're roughly on the same page, arguing about the punctuation.

As I think more about this, I may be changing my mind.

Do you presume that refraining from building more settlements in contested territory is both necessary and sufficient for the animosity to end?

Earlier this morning, I would have answered your question this way: "I don't know, but building settlements certainly doesn't help, and so Israel can't say they are acting entirely in self-defense."

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor. Palestine today is not capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on Israel, but that could change if the difference in birth rates is sustained. So there may be an argument here that Israel has no choice but to do what it is doing today - to wholly conquer and subjugate the Palestinians...

My apologies for being indecisive! This is my first time writing about this issue, and I am realizing that there are gaps in my thinking.

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor. Palestine today is not capable of inflicting catastrophic damage on Israel, but that could change if the difference in birth rates is sustained. So there may be an argument here that Israel has no choice but to do what it is doing today - to wholly conquer and subjugate the Palestinians...

You're in some extremely dangerous territory here.

The argument you've deployed is also completely applicable to white nationalism and the extermination of people of colour. Maybe you are actually a white nationalist who thinks that is a good idea, but if you aren't I think you owe it to yourself to explain exactly what differentiates the two situations.

I don't think the birth rate difference is important. But I do think it's important to understand that this conflict does not go away if Israel stops building settlements. That's the marginal issue. But it's not the core issue.

The grim reality is that it's impossible to have peace because a great many Palestinians do not want peace.

But I just remembered that Arabs have much higher birth rates than Jews, so if Israel stops all interference in Palestine, the balance of power may shift decisively in the latter's favor.

This is just wrong though? It's an old trope, popular both with Palestinians ("Our women's wombs are our greatest weapon!") and with Jews ("those fecund savages are swelling up like yeast, we must not fall behind!") but in actuality Arab fertility has been declining, Jewish one has been stable, and so they've converged in Israel:

Contrary to the projections of the demographic establishment at the end of the 19th century and during the 1940s, Israel’s Jewish fertility rate is higher than those of all Muslim countries other than Iraq and the sub-Saharan Muslim countries. Based on the latest data, the Jewish fertility rate of 3.13 births per woman is higher than the 2.85 Arab rate (since 2016) and the 3.01 Arab-Muslim fertility rate (since 2020).

The Westernization of Arab demography is a product of ongoing urbanization and modernization, with an increase in the number of women enrolling in higher education and increased use of contraceptives.

Far from facing a “demographic time bomb” in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish state enjoys a robust demographic tailwind, aided by immigration.

However, the demographic and policy-making establishment persists in echoing official Palestinian figures without auditing, ignoring a 100% artificial inflation of those population numbers. This inflation is accomplished via the inclusion of overseas residents, double-counting Jerusalem Arabs and Israeli Arabs married to Judea and Samaria Arabs, an inflated birth rate and deflated death rate.

Official Palestinian TFR is like 3.57 but even if we take that at face value and assume it won't decline (it obviously will, they don't have any cultural immunity or institutional capacity to resist the background anti-natalist pressure, unlike Jews), it won't provide for a stark divide in the foreseeable future – and of course the subset of Jews who disproportionately contribute to the trend, Haredim, themselves have a TFR of 6-7, so they're on a much faster exponential and will be a counterweight to Arabs on their own by the end of the century. Specifically, they have like 1.2 million people now and grow at 4% annually; Palestinians are at 5 million and grow 2.5% annually – both will be between 20-30 million strong.

My apologies for being indecisive! This is my first time writing about this issue, and I am realizing that there are gaps in my thinking.

No worries, we're here to debate after all, and if people reconsider their perspectives, that's The Motte working as intended!

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