site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29215 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump's Mideast Envoy Forced Netanyahu to Accept a Gaza Plan He Repeatedly Rejected

Last Friday evening, Steven Witkoff, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, called from Qatar to tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's aides that he would be coming to Israel the following afternoon. The aides politely explained that was in the middle of the Sabbath but that the prime minister would gladly meet him Saturday night.

Witkoff's blunt reaction took them by surprise. He explained to them in salty English that Shabbat was of no interest to him. His message was loud and clear. Thus in an unusual departure from official practice, the prime minister showed up at his office for an official meeting with Witkoff, who then returned to Qatar to seal the deal.

In fact, Witkoff has forced Israel to accept a plan that Netanyahu had repeatedly rejected over the past half year. Hamas has not budged from its position that the hostages' freedom must be conditioned on the release of Palestinian prisoners (the easy part) and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (the hard one). Netanyahu rejected this condition and thus was born the partial deal proposed by Egypt.

It's hard to know how Netanyahu feels about this aggressive behavior. While it provides an excuse he can give to his base, he may resent being dragged into an unwanted deal that will end the war and possibly lead to political upheaval at home. His propaganda machine is pushing the no-choice narrative that it's Trump. On Monday, laments began to be heard on Channel 14 that Trump isn't what we thought. "I'm surprised all the senior officials in the U.S. administration are saying the same thing," Yotam Zimri said on the Patriots program. "If this doesn't happen by the time Trump comes in, Hamas will understand what hell is. I don't understand the Israeli interest in at least not waiting for Trump." Yinon Magal answered," It's because Trump is pressing to do it! That's what's happening."

Trump declared repeatedly that if the remaining Israeli hostages weren't out by his inauguration there would be 'hell to pay'. Most people assumed this meant that MIGA Don would fully back more aggressive Israeli military action, but instead he's willing to pressure Israel into a deal they don't want. Israeli finance minister Smotrich called it a 'catastrophe' and if he quits the government it would collapse Netanyahu's coalition.

Details of the proposed plan can be found here:

Both sides agreed that Hamas would release three hostages on the first day of the agreement, after which Israel would begin withdrawing the troops from populated areas. Seven days later, Hamas would release four additional hostages, and Israel would allow displaced people in the southern to return to the north, but only on foot via the coastal road. Cars, animal-drawn carts, and trucks would be permitted to cross through a passage adjacent to Salah al-Din Road, monitored by an X-ray machine operated by a Qatari-Egyptian technical security team.

The agreement includes provisions for Israeli forces to remain in the Philadelphi corridor and maintain an 800-meter buffer zone along the eastern and northern borders during the first phase, which will last 42 days. Israel has also agreed to release 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including approximately 190 who have been serving sentences of 15 years or more. In exchange, Hamas will release 34 hostages. Negotiations for the second and third phases of the agreement would begin on the 16th day of the ceasefire.

I suspect that for domestic reasons Trump wants this over on whatever terms so that it isn’t festering during his term. Israel splits the left, yes, but it also splits Maga.

No it doesn’t. Even IRL antisemitic right wingers- of whom there are far fewer than on the internet- see Palestinians as a bunch of savages in the desert that need dealt with by someone.

The American right has, probably, a literal single digit number of people with any sympathy for Palestine whatsoever. If there was a way to poll trump voters who also deny the Holocaust, I suspect that poll would show strong support for Israel in its wars against Palestinians. There are more Trump voters who use Palestinian as a slur than who think Israeli forces have done literally anything wrong.

It's not correct to assume there are only antisemitic right wingers and zionist right wingers. There are a great deal of Republicans who are noninterventionist either out of libertarianism or as a result of Iraq/Afghanistan and there are many who, like me, have a great affinity for Jews while seeing Israel as morally no different than the terrorist states they fight. This isn't a coalition, but it's certainly a larger group than the "Holocaust didn't happen but it's a good thing" types. If it's enough to contribute to Democrat election losses, then that means it's enough to contribute to Republican election losses.

And that's not delving into the conservative voting Muslim or global South origin issue.

Yeah, there’s non-interventionist right wingers- and they don’t particularly want the war to stop. They don’t care about gazans. It’s somebody else’s troops fighting. At most they want Israel to pay for it.

Yeah, there’s non-interventionist right wingers- and they don’t particularly want the war to stop. They don’t care about gazans. It’s somebody else’s troops fighting. At most they want Israel to pay for it.

At most? Did you mean at least? You don't get to call yourself a non-interventionist if you support intervening in a foreign conflict by sending vast sums of money, military equipment and military support. That's the bare minimum required to be a non-interventionist.

If there was a way to poll trump voters who also deny the Holocaust, I suspect that poll would show strong support for Israel in its wars against Palestinians.

This doesn't match my personal experience… but then again, the "Holocaust-denying" sorts I know IRL weren't exactly big on Trump — either from a 'not voting until the left is actually correct about the GOP candidate being Hitler' position, or a 'they're both ZOG puppets, but Harris winning would at least keep more attention on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which has been the best thing in decades for waking people up to the vile, murderous inborn character of the Eternal Jew' position.

The slogan is "make America great again". Not waste trillions on forever wars in the middle east with no prospect of success. Maga is the opposite of the fiascos of nation building from the mainstream republicans. Genociding the local christian population isn't that popular with young people. Younger voters, including younger republicans skew a lot more pro Palestine. Israel actively supporting jihadists in Syria hurts their supposed "anti-islam" stance.

Not waste trillions on forever wars in the middle east with no prospect of success. Maga is the opposite of the fiascos of nation building from the mainstream republicans.

Well, there's some on the right — though, per your later point about "younger republicans," these skew older — who belong to what Parvini calls the "counter-jihadis." For them, the answer is that it's not about "nation building" or bringing democracy, feminism, and LGBT tolerance to the Middle East, it's about killing Muslims — because either you're killing Muslims, or Muslims are killing you.

I remember one, shortly after Oct. 7, demanding that US troops be sent over to start killing Gazans, because if we didn't do so right now, we'd have similar attacks in countless American towns, and that the whole reason the attack happened in the first place is because we weren't keeping the Muslims suppressed enough, which is why we need to make sure that we are bombing or shooting Muslims in multiple countries 24/7/365.

I've encountered arguments about how there are no civilian casualties in Gaza because there's no such thing as a Muslim civilian, that every single one of them — even a newborn — is a valid military target. About how there are no moderate Muslims, only those biding their time and practicing taqiyya, and how even the most well-integrated and moderate-seeming Muslim could suddenly commit a terrorist attack at any given moment. How the First Amendment doesn't apply to "Mohammedanism," because it's not really a religion at all, but a political ideology of murderous global conquest — much like Nazism — trying to pass itself off as a religion. How Islam is and has always been the number one enemy of Christendom — with invocations of Charles Martell, the Reconquista, the Gates of Vienna, the Crusades, etc. — and thus fighting them must remain the West's highest priority. (I find this one skews a bit younger and more online than the rest, tending to come with a fondness for "Deus Vult" and "Make Istanbul Constantinople Again" memes.) Lots of "founded by a pedophile warlord" comments.

Israel actively supporting jihadists in Syria hurts their supposed "anti-islam" stance.

Yeah, and that has quieted some of these folks a bit, though there's a certain amount of "enemy of my enemy" and "it's a complex situation" rationalization that happens IME.

The American right has, probably, a literal single digit number of people with any sympathy for Palestine whatsoever.

I think we have more than single digits of people on this site who fit that description.

Right, but a loud single digit (let’s say 5%) can cause trouble on an issue, especially when they’re overrepresented in your propaganda wing.

EDIT: Sorry, misread you. I think your numbers are off: I’ve had multiple in-person MAGA Americans bring this up with me spontaneously. They’re not like the left, they don’t have any love for Hamas, but ‘we’re spending gold and reputation so Israel can defend its stolen land by bombing helpless savages to paste’ is absolutely a POV that exists on the MAGA right. I think a percentage in the high single-digits is probably about right.

Trump has enough on his plate, I doubt he cares much about Israel, and so I can imagine him wanting to just get this off the table so he can focus on more important stuff.

IME the most common formulation is ‘I don’t trust Jews but they have the right to do whatever they want to sand niggers but they should pay for it themselves because they have all the money in the world anyways’. This is not a pro-Israel position but it’s also not a position which has sympathy for Palestine.

Our experiences differ, I guess. There are plenty of right-wingers who are pro-Jewish, or at worst mildly irritated by them, who nevertheless feel that killing lots of Palestinians is wrong.

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