site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14324 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm trying my hand at public writing. Evaluating the potential actions of a unique geopolitical actor like Iran is an interesting challenge, and there are a lot of strange ideas about it out there. Read the whole thing for an attempt to apply rational actor theory to Iranian leaders.

https://ftsoa.substack.com/p/assessing-the-troubled-future-of

Selected excerpts:

This is I think an unprecedented occurrence in history—enforcing a neutralization of an adversary’s key military programs from the air after an unnegotiated ceasefire. Iran invested an immense amount into its “mostly peaceful” nuclear program, its missile industry and forces, and its proxies as part of its strategy for regional domination and ideological opposition to the U.S. and Israel. For Iran to accept this neutering would effectively be an unnegotiated surrender of several of the Islamic regime’s key objectives, and acceptance of domination by its bitterest adversary. It would be untenable to admit that publicly. It seems hardly tenable to concede it implicitly.

There are perhaps three broad courses of action for the Islamic regime:

  1. Open Defiance: As soon as possible, directly confront the U.S. and Israel by restarting military/nuclear programs and aggression.

  2. Tacit Acceptance: Maintain defiant rhetoric, but do nothing to actually aggravate Israel or the U.S. indefinitely and focus on maintaining domestic control.

  3. Covert Defiance: Maintain defiant rhetoric and domestic control, and “secretly” hit back at the U.S. and Israel via “undetectable” means like cyber warfare and terrorism, and attempt to “covertly” rebuild military/nuclear capabilities in a way that will actually work next time, like managing to rapidly build a nuclear warhead or figuring out how to actually shoot down an F-35.

Anyone remotely sane would recognize (1) is suicide by IAF. The problem with (2) is that eventually it’s going to be obvious to at least the hardline military and security class—the regime’s key believers and protectors—that Iran has in fact implicitly surrendered. And (3) means hoping that Iran can, unlike every other time, “get away with it” and actually put up a real fight down the road. Additionally, Iran’s economy and the regime’s popularity were already on thin ice before all this. Not great! Historically, (3) is the obvious choice for Iran as it’s something of a compromise between the hardline and the pragmatist camps. But in what manner and on what timeline and with what level of risk acceptance? The ongoing work to uncover Fordo is evidence for (3) being the chosen course of action. How long will the IAF permit that activity?

Given the above considerations, here’s where my gut is on the blurry probability of broad outcomes:

Possible, but unlikely:

Neutered Islamic regime at least tacitly accepts defeat and survives indefinitely as a shadow of its former self.

Quite possible, even likely:

Defiant Iran and Israel go back to war in coming weeks/months; economic and/or regime collapse.

Very likely:

Israel mows the grass; a mostly neutered Islamic regime survives indefinitely.

Very likely:

Israel mows the grass; economic and/or regime collapse within a few years.

I think it’s almost certain that Israel will have cause to mow the Iranian grass because I have a hard time imagining the Iranian regime, or at least some rogue hardline element, will not try to cross Israel’s red lines (and be caught doing so). I also struggle to imagine that pragmatist and reformist camps will transition the regime into something more tolerable without hardliners reasserting control. I have much less certainty about the chances of economic and/or regime collapse, but it’s certainly a very real possibility. Probably more likely than not in the coming year or two.

The obvious cop out is that any number of curve balls could enter the scene such that I am shown to have been insufficiently imaginative or wise. In my defense, President Trump did a 180 from “total surrender” and “regime change” to “ceasefire now” in like 72 hours. The Israelis and Iranians, however, are more consistent in their underlying goals and behaviors. The Israelis have been openly advocating for regime change, in recognition that’s probably the only real solution to Iran as an enduring threat. The Iranians remain at least rhetorically defiant. Something has to give.

This entire episode solidified in my mind that its the US that has much more leverage over Israel than the other way around. It also undermined the argument that Israel has control over US foreign policy.

Is there anyone disagreeing with this? I'm only familiar with the claim that the US supports for ideological reasons, not that Israel has any leverage over the US.

That the US has a "Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG)" is a pretty common conspiracy theory. I think SS and the other local dissident right members could tell you all about it.

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.

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?

Both, from what I've seen on Twitter, but the latter is explained by invoking a conspiracy that Zionist Jews control the US government.

Even if there are prominent Jews in the administration, it seems obvious to me why the US would want to be allied with Israel and why, by extension, it would not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. As far as I'm concerned, Iran should be treated as a pariah as long as it refuses to behave like a civilized country. There's nothing stopping it from normalizing relations with the US and Israel and thus significantly improving the lives of its citizens.

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.

Iranians are a greatly civilized people and there's no reason their country can't achieve socioeconomic parity with Eastern Europe if they weren't ruled by a stupid and selfish cult. It's a testament to the strength of the people that despite a brain drain going back four decades and crushing financial sanctions, Iranians are able to keep their economy afloat, produce excellent scientists and academic output, and maintain a European feel to Tehran.

They hate Israël, but so do plenty of countries in the US orbit.

Every other country is making peace with Israel and fostering closer ties, to their benefit. Iran's irrational hatred of Israel is not rooted in history or geopolitical sense; Jews and Persians get along much better than Jews and Arabs, both in Iran and in the diaspora.

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

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.

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!

More comments

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.

More comments

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.

More comments

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