site banner
PaperclipPerfector  18d ago (text post)   27174 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 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.

Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding, or that they believe the US leadership holds an ideology resulting in their support of Israel even against the interests of Americans?

Isn't the "Epstein was a Mossad asset" meme tied into the idea that Israel is blackmailing U.S. politicians to do its bidding?

Yes, and I believe he was, in fact, a Mossad asset, and as handy as he must have been at critical junctures, I'm dubious that Epstein Island had the necessary throughput to shape the long-term trajectory of the US foreign policy.

Also, you kind of have to be careful about blackmailing people en-masse, because if they realize this is what's being done to them, they might coordinate to fight back against you.

Iran should be treated as a pariah as long as it refuses to behave like a civilized country

Iran is our enemy but I don’t actually know what makes them uncivilized. Certainly they wouldn’t be the worst example of either tyranny or mohammedan savagery allowed in the US orbit. They hate Israël, but so do plenty of countries in the US orbit. The USA itself uses a harshly punitive criminal justice system with plenty of prison rape. Their per capita execution rate is actually behind Singapore’s.

I should have been more specific; I am referring to the Iranian government.

That's how I understood it, and I still don't know what's supposed to be so uncivilized about the Iranian government.

Are you unfamiliar with the laws around hijab? Music?

Iran's irrational hatred of Israel is not rooted in history or geopolitical sense

Yes it is. Israel and Iran are the two most militarily powerful countries in the Middle East. If Iran or Israel disappeared overnight, the other would be in an excellent position to dictate terms to the weaker Arab states. Whoever survives is the major regional power for the next 300 years (barring Turkey). You’ll notice that while Israel and Iran had a few scuffles through the 80s, the knives really started to come out after Saddam Hussein fell and Syria collapsed. Iraq (and the threat of a Ba’athist axis) being the main third player for regional power.

Iranians would benefit tremendously if their insane leaders were overthrown and a sensible government aligned itself with the US.

That’s how we ended up in this mess in the first place!

This take ignores the ideological motivations of the Islamic regime and analyzes them if this is just a par-for-the-course geopolitical rivalry.

It also ignores the Arab distaste for the Iranian regime.

Iran's government might be incompetent, but again, I don't understand what's uncivilized about it?

it seems obvious to me why the US would want to be allied with Israel

Far from obvious to me. What would you say they're getting out of it?

As far as I'm concerned, Iran should be treated as a pariah as long as it refuses to behave like a civilized country.

What's so uncivilized about them? I keep hearing complaints of "sponsoring terrorism" but plenty of civilized countries like to play that game.

but plenty of civilized countries like to play that game.

"So there I was in a pub in Belfast enjoying a lovely Imperial pint and watching the local match, when my accountant back in Boston called asking about retirement contributions. I got lots of weird looks at the bar when I said 'I want to contribute as much as I can to the IRA', and you'd think the room went cold."

You laugh, but a) plenty of American (okay, Irish-American) money went into the actual IRA, and b) the US loves sponsoring terrorism, to the point it often ends up fighting the very terrorists it sponsored.

The ambassador to Washington at the time covered it in his (rather good) autobiography. One of the single biggest causes of the IRA’s defeat was convincing influential Irish-Americans that donating to the IRA was hurting the Irish rather than supporting them.

9/11 is one of the reasons the dissident Republican groups never went anywhere, because of all the new, much more comprehensive terrorist financing laws.

Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding,

Yes

I only had a skim, but couldn't find the part about arm-twisting.

It's a bit of an extended discussion, but at the bottom of this comment I wrote:

The US started supporting Israel after their victory in the six-day war showcased their value as a military power in a region broadly aligned with the Soviets. By the time of the oil embargo keeping Israel on their side during the cold war felt like the right bet to decision makers in the US. You may think they were wrong, but that they thought this was the correct choice seems more plausible than that they were being controlled by a shadowy cabal who had between 67 and 73 achieved total control of the government.

To which the response was:

There is nothing shadowy about the cabal, it's blatant.

I did ask @RandomRanger a little later on to clarify his position:

I mean, maybe I'm being autistic and interpreting too literally your earlier claim that

I don't know how it's possible for the word ZOG to be problematized like it's some crazy, loopy theory when in the case of the US, it's literally true.

but again, if the position is that all US interests are subordinate to Israeli interests and have been since the mid 20th century, then Israel wouldn't face any threats at all (or at the very least, far fewer). Is what I just described your position, or have I misinterpreted it?

But received no response. He's welcome of course to jump in and make his stance on the topic clear, until then, draw your own conclusion; my interpretation is that if he doesn't think Israel is twisting the US' arm, it's only because Israel already owns the US government.

if the position is that all US interests are subordinate to Israeli interests

Israel doesn't own the US government but they have enormous influence especially in foreign policy and anything pertaining to Israel. Occasionally the US tries to do something that actually prioritizes American interests over Israel's, the Israel lobby usually nixes this in the end: the Iran deal for instance. Now the US does have huge leverage over Israel in terms of capabilities. Merely shutting off aid would be catastrophic for their military, who relies on US provided weapons, satellites, communications and USAF for air defence. I've said before that the US could annihilate Israel at will with sanctions alone, the state would quickly disintegrate.

But in terms of mental, political, lobbying power, Israel enjoys a huge advantage. The warrior can easily demolish a succubus in battle but it's irrelevant if she has her charm spell running.

I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on. Nor can I give you a date where it suddenly happened, it's not a switch that was flipped on but a gradual process peaking around the 2000s.

But something, surely, has to be off when you've got big figures like Ted Cruz going on interviews about how the Bible says God will bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel, how he got into politics aiming to be the biggest defender of Israel. Some of this is Adelson money and other Israel lobby cash/threats, some of it is weird Christianity, nevertheless it's unusual and indicates powerful influence.

Occasionally the US tries to do something that actually prioritizes American interests over Israel's, the Israel lobby usually nixes this in the end: the Iran deal for instance.

I mean, the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel. There are/have been so many of these I'm not sure you could just label them occasional incidences of America not prioritizing Israeli interests at this point.

Merely shutting off aid would be catastrophic for their military,

I'm not sure you understand the actual numbers involved. US annual aid to Israel is $3.8 billion, not a small number, but less than 1% of Israel's GDP. That number has gone up during the recent hostilities, but not to the extent that it would be a catastrophe for Israel to have to pay upfront.

who relies on US provided weapons, satellites, communications and USAF for air defence.

Was this last bit about the USAF some sort of typo?

I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on.

@ArjinFerman There you go.

less than 1% of Israel's GDP

Forget GDP, GDP is just a number. You can't just go out and buy large numbers of artillery shells, JDAMs, advanced missile defence, spare parts. It's not a liquid market, buying more can just make the price go up. Few countries make these things. Israel can't produce munitions at scale because they're a small country, they don't even have a domestic steel industry. They rely on the US for this because America is actually large and has huge stockpiles that are reliably used to replenish the Israeli arsenal. Otherwise they'd just run out of munitions or Israel would have to wait ages to restock, inhibiting their military capacity.

Furthermore, military aid always roars up whenever Israel actually needs it, it went up to about $22 billion in the year after October 7th. See here: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIsrael

Technically speaking, the there is a law against America giving any military aid to nuclear powers who haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty like Israel but they just pretend it's fine.

Was this last bit about the USAF some sort of typo?

No, the USAF and RAF literally, directly, provide air defence for Israel directly. US F-16s shot down Iranian missiles attacking Israel. Plus US warships nearby fire their expensive ABMs to defend Israel.

the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel

Saddam's Iraq was an anti-Israel force. Israel bombed their nuclear reactor in the 80s. In the Gulf War Iraq Scudded Israel. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, in large part due to false intelligence about WMDs which the Israelis contributed. Plus a bunch of US policymakers talked about how the real reasoning was that Iraq was a threat to Israel. See my comment here: https://www.themotte.org/post/765/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/162796?context=8#context

Forget GDP, GDP is just a number.

GDP is a number that correlates pretty directly with the ability of the state to purchase goods and services, such as military equipment, from other states, unless you’re going to argue that money is fake and that allowing Israel to buy arms from Lockheed Martin at market prices using a medium of exchange like dollars is some unexplainable act of charity on the US’ part.

It's not a liquid market, buying more can just make the price go up. Few countries make these things. Israel can't produce munitions at scale because they're a small country, they don't even have a domestic steel industry.

This feels like throwing out random tangents.

Furthermore, military aid always roars up whenever Israel actually needs it, it went up to about $22 billion in the year after October 7th. See here: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIsrael

Suggesting that the market for military equipment isn't as illiquid as you made out. In any case, I'm not sure this is any more evidence of Israel controlling the US government than Ukraine does, given the $61 billion of aid that the US gave them in April 2024.

No, the USAF and RAF literally, directly, provide air defence for Israel directly. US F-16s shot down Iranian missiles attacking Israel. Plus US warships nearby fire their expensive ABMs to defend Israel.

I don't know of any times the US has ever provided direct air defence for Israel beyond the two recent episodes when Iran shot missiles at them, and while they doubtlessly appreciated it, it’s no different to what the US would do if missiles were fired towards Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or any of their other middle eastern allies, and far less than what the US would be obliged by treaty to do if someone started firing missiles at a NATO ally. The US does less for Israel than it would do for Estonia in this context.

Saddam's Iraq was an anti-Israel force. Israel bombed their nuclear reactor in the 80s. In the Gulf War Iraq Scudded Israel. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, in large part due to false intelligence about WMDs which the Israelis contributed. Plus a bunch of US policymakers talked about how the real reasoning was that Iraq was a threat to Israel. See my comment here: https://www.themotte.org/post/765/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/162796?context=8#context

I’m not even sure this is a motte and bailey, given how unlikely the claim that the US went into Iraq primarily for Israel’s sake, just a bailey and a slightly less rickety bailey. In any case, the claim that US foreign policy is mostly dictated by Israeli interests is so extreme that the Iraq claim could be true and it still wouldn’t be sufficient for your argument given that US hasn’t deployed ground troops to take out any the modern threats facing Israel in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza or Iran.

GDP is a number that correlates pretty directly with the ability of the state to purchase goods and services, such as military equipment

Someone should remind the North Koreans their 'GDP' is small, so they can't provide more shells to Russia than Europe (huge GDP!)

In any case, I'm not sure this is any more evidence of Israel controlling the US government than Ukraine does

Israel gets the most advanced US weapons to fight a few Arabs, while Ukraine gets second-rate equipment, F-16s rather than F-35s, in a war with Russia.

it’s no different to what the US would do if missiles were fired towards Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or any of their other middle eastern allies

The distinction is that all other US allies bring something to the table. Saudi Arabia brings oil and money. Turkey controls a key strait and sends troops to help the US occasionally, though they're not a great ally. Britain, Australia, Canada will send troops to help America too.

Israel only takes. They create enemies for America, they harm collaboration with the Islamic world, they sell military technology to China and frustrate US diplomatic efforts to pull out of the Middle East and focus on Asia. They never send troops to help America, they send shoddy intelligence and suck up aid like a leech. They even got the US to pay off their neighbours too, Egypt and to a lesser extent Jordan get billions in aid for being nice to Israel, the aid started as soon as they signed a peace treaty with Israel.

given how unlikely the claim that the US went into Iraq primarily for Israel’s sake, just a bailey and a slightly less rickety bailey

Go tell that to the neocons, generals, and officials who were there when decisions were made and describe their reasoning perfectly clearly. Did the US go into Iraq to seize the oil, which ended up mostly in the hands of Chinese companies? Or did they go in to fight the Islamist terrorists, mostly of Saudi background and who Saddam was suppressing anyway? Clearly not, instead there's silly discourse about aluminium tubes and other shoddy intelligence, much of which came from Mossad or was used to justify a pre-determined decision. If it weren't for Israeli influence, the war wouldn't have happened.

hasn’t deployed ground troops to take out any the modern threats facing Israel in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza or Iran

The US has bombed Yemen and Iran, given Israel munitions to bomb Gaza and Lebanon. US troops were infamously on the ground in Lebanon before getting blown up and departing. Just because the Israel lobby doesn't get everything they want all of the time, it doesn't mean their influence isn't excessive.

More comments

I mean, the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel.

The Iraq war was fought on behalf of Israel at the behest of Zionist Jews in the American foreign policy apparatus who fabricated intelligence on WMDs for the purpose of manipulating the US into war against Israel's regional rivals. The Iraq War was fought for Israel, not for WMDs and certainly not for Oil or Democracy.

Weird that they went for Iraq and not Iran at the time, no?

Since Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program and was far more opposed to Israel than Iraq was.

With the benefit of hindsight, they probably should have taken out Iran instead of Iraq first.

But Israel pressured Bush to bomb Iran although he refused. Iraq + Afghanistan being occupied makes Iran completely surrounded by the US military apparatus. What happened was the collapse of the nation-building narrative due to the failures of the Iraq war that made war with Iran politically impossible.

I might be missing something, but I think this disproves your claim rather then proves it? There being a mix of both does not imply that Israel's influence rests on their ability to make the US leadership generally do something against their will.

Your question was:

Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding,

And the response was:

I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on.

Stating that Israel does twist the US' arm.

I think it's some kind of mixture of "Evangelical Christians have willingly enslaved themselves to the Israeli agenda due to bad exegesis" and "Israel has blackmail on lots of higher ups in the US."

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