site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 21, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's talk about Israel and Palestine.

Okay, I can hear you sighing already. But before you look away, let's talk about Clausewitz.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. In our ideological age, where everything is political, it may not seem profound: but it establishes a commonality between the military and civilian where analogies can be made. Like, 'what if we have no ability to fight a war, but continue it anyway?' Could we just... filibuster, our enemies, until they give us the political ends we desire?

This concept is similar to the Trotskyite concept of 'no war, no peace'. (That the policy ended in disaster and Brest-Litovsk bodes ill.) In the Clausewitzian model, war is conducted between states. The loser gives concessions to the winner, with the assumption that even a bad peace is better than a bad war, that ending hostilities - even for the moment - is the best way to bring about revanchist policy.

The differential between Palestine and Israel in terms of military capacity is greater than ever: it was never at par, even in 1948. Seventy-five years later and the Arabs might as well be Ewoks against the Empire. Not to say that they lack the capacity to harm the Israelis, but they have no military capacity to enforce political goals on their enemy. Even now, their demands for a ceasefire are entirely one sided: they are simply outmatched in every conceivable military dimension.

There exists a hope in the Palestinian cause, that there will be a tipping point where they can present to the international community of some Israeli atrocity that will bring about a external intervention. It is the only card they have to play. But now that Israel has control of the food aid that goes into Gaza with the ousting of UNWRA, time is no longer on their side. Their enemy will never consent to a return to the former status quo, no matter how urgently the international community chastises them.

Not coming to terms and holding on for maximalist goals may seem like a cheat in insurgency warfare. But inevitably, reality and physical limits intrude onto the nationalist fantasy. It is chutzpah of the highest order to rely on the charity and good will of your enemy to feed your people. This conflict - indefinitely sustained by Soviet leftist dregs of the anti-colonialist cause - will come to an end not through some master stroke of diplomacy, but a famine long in the making.

Hamas sought to use international sympathy as a weapon, relying on the services provided by American and European NGOs so that they could devote all the funds they neglected to invest in their civilians into their military. Now that military is destroyed, they have no leverage at all. The Israelis are not bluffing. They will not give in, no matter what the pressure. They are perfectly willing to watch Gaza starve until some entity comes out of the territory that they can negotiate with.

As Calgacus would say, "They make a desert and call it peace." Modern problems require Roman solutions. The fatal Palestinian mistake was that they always assumed Israel would come to the negotiating table. After fifty years of fruitless negotiation, the Israelis finally have had enough. There will be no more deals, no more bargains. Just the short, terminal drop to destruction.

If Israel starves all Gazans to death, there would probably be a severe international response. We are seeing consistent public opinion shifts against Israel already. Mike Huckabee’s recent shift is a telling example. There’s also been a general shift against Judaism among the public. The question is how much Israel can torture the civilians before there is sufficient moral pressure to make them stop.

Are Gazans starving ? Not yet at least. Not in the way we understand starving. At 5.8%, that would put it alongside stable middle-economy nations like Mexico, Thailand and Brazil. Most of Africa & the Indian Subcontinent are doing twice as worse. Gaza's tragedies, like Ukraine over-reported in comparison to mundane everyday evil that kills more people everywhere else.

how much Israel can torture the civilians before there is sufficient moral pressure to make them stop

What's left? To viewers on social media, Israel is already conducting a holocaust-esque genocide. Facts be damned. I imagine Israel can keep going for much longer, because Hamas has milked social media sympathy for all its worth. The only pressure that matters comes from the State department or Israel's population. A change of heart of either group will come from a frustration with the ineffectiveness of how the war is run, rather than any moral calculus.

  1. I am responding to the OP’s future scenario

  2. You linked me to a long write-up by an activist. Why should I take it seriously? Do you have a specific reason to think Gaza isn’t facing starvation? Why not specify the compelling evidence instead of saying “here, read this long tweet by LiterallyWho”

  3. Why should I not trust the UN? https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165457

  4. Why should I not trust the World Food Programme? https://x.com/WFP/status/1947036919289741771

  5. Why should I not trust the World Hunger Organization? https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gaza-facing-man-made-mass-starvation-says-whos-tedros-2025-07-23/

  6. Why should I not trust the NYT? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/world/middleeast/gaza-starvation.html

  7. Why should I not trust Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, and Oxfam? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9xkx7vnmxo.amp

  8. Are American Baptists lying to me? https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/more-than-100-organizations-are-sounding-the-alarm-to-allow-lifesaving-aid-into-gaza/

  9. ^ Is the Catholic charity group Caritas from Germany lying to me?

  10. ^ Is the Episcopal Peace Fellowship lying to me?

  11. Is Japan International Volunteer Center lying to me?

  12. ^ Is the Mennonite Central Committee lying to me?

The starvation claimed by the linked urls and a starvation where 'Israel starves all Gazans to death' are not the same thing. My contention is with the slippery slope framing of it. I don't believe the OP was implying mass famine either.

The standoff between Israel, UN and Hamas is technically causing starvation, but there is a big difference between undernourishment and deadly famine. I am uniquely heartless having grown up in the 3rd world. Stunting & wasting is commonplace. Deadly famines killed millions until the 1980s. I could have more sympathy. I'll try.

That being said, the article I linked is worth reading. The linked author seems legitimate enough. Biased, yes. But, not an activist. He also posts on substack, but the article was pay walled there.

This Substack is about Defense, the Middle East, and the psychology of disinformation, from a former soldier. I served for 16 years in the British Army (2005-21), leaving the Parachute Regiment with the rank of Major. I completed three tours in Afghanistan including one attached to US Army Special Forces, and further tours of Bosnia, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

I was a senior lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, teaching in the War Studies and Behavioral Science departments, teaching military theory and leadership to officer cadets in training. I am currently a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.

In 2024, I visited Gaza twice and captured Hezbollah tunnels in Lebanon. I am a regular Middle East commentator on national media.


a general shift against Judaism among the public

Antisemitism isn't a monolith. Thinking of it as a monolith is unproductive and misleading. There are at least 4 distinct groups that plausibly hate jews: Muslims, Leftists, Incels and Bandwagoners.

Muslims hatred for Jews runs deep. This is proper bigotry. Proper antisemitism. Modern muslims may articulate a rationale for their hatred of Israel, and there are many good reasons. But, the hatred precedes those reasons.

Leftists hate Jews for being perceived as right-wing (economically and socially) oppressors.

Incels hate Jews because they are smart and rich. It's hatred rooted in jealousy and resentment. Here, an incel is a standin-term for a chronically online man who believes in a binary alpha male / beta male characterization of the world. They aren't necessarily sexless. Many black men (famously Kanye) and poor whites fit this bill.

Bandwagoners only care about optics. Optics tell them that Israel is bad and worth hating so they hate them. bandwagoners are most vulnerable to visible displays of cruelty. This is the largest group.

In Europe, rising antisemitism has to do with a rising Muslim population. Similarly, in NYC, it has to do with the rise of a Muslim-coded leftist as mayoral candidate. On college campuses, the rise in antisemitism is because of bandwagoners who can't afford to be seen as uncool in university. University leftists were always antisemitic, so there isn't much scope for rise there. On the internet and especially X, it is fueled by incel tears.

The reason I make this distinction, is because leftists and bandwagoners channel their hatred through Netanyahu. If he goes, Israel may get a period of relief from these 2 groups. As jews continue to lose face in public, incels are already losing motivation. If the new Israeli leader lacks big-dick-energy, the incels will mark him as effeminate and move over to their next source of resentment.

That leaves us with the Muslims. I don't have an answer here. Muslims seem to genuinely hate Jews and Israel. I don't know if anything can be done about it. As the population of devout muslims rises through the 1st world, antisemitism will rise in lockstep. Maybe they'll become irreligious as they integrate. But, the results in Europe aren't encouraging.


Incels? That's one I haven't heard. Thought that was orthogonal to perceptions of Jewish people. Being driven to dislike everyone except Jewish and Asian men and in the entertainment industry seems more fitting. Jewish guys have a nebbish reputation after all. It's the Booty Sweat celebs you'd think most piss them off.

I suppose to the degree incels are nerdy and into Asian women (I'm very much not, and frankly don't get it) then the likes of Zuckerberg and wife and the salience of rich Jewish nerds may weigh heavily on them.

He is using an, uh, unconventional definition of incel. See, the sentence right after his use of the word.