site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The dam is finally breaking on western support for Israel as the justifications for its post-10/7 actions have become increasingly deranged. "We must starve babies in Gaza, for the security of Israel. For they are part of an evil race tribe and would surely strangle every Jew if only their tiny baby hands had the strength."

As I said in another comment, this is a really hairy situation to have the functional equivalent of the Taliban in your backyard, and every option for dealing with it looks ugly. The United States could not stamp out the Taliban. Of course, starvation is an awful thing, but what do you think should be done about Hamas? Or should anything be done about them? Should Israel stop worrying and learn to live with Hamas?

Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas? It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel. Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza? No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?

Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas?

They are attempting to replace an ineffective aid stream that primarily benefits Hamas via confiscation and resale (UN channels) with another ineffective aid stream that attempts to cut out Hamas and provide aid directly to civilians (GHF aid, guarded by IDF and/or contractors). The goal is denying food aid to actual combatants (Hamas) and also denying combatants the ability to monetize aid by confiscating it and reselling it to the population, providing the combatants extra income and resources with which to carry on resistance.

It's not a complicated strategy.

It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel.

You are correct; Hamas is just the Gaza branch of the broader Muslim Brotherhood, which has many other branches in many other arab/islamicate countries. However, Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, and the quasi-sovereign entity which attacked Israel on 10/7, therefore Israel's effort is concentrated against them. Other areas with Muslim Brotherhood parties which have not conducted such hostilities (e.g. the West Bank) are not subject to military operations.

Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza?

No, a bunch of them are sitting on stolen billions and living in Qatar and other luxe gulf states.

No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?

No, but if Israel were to target "everyone who might pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone" then you'd fault them for carrying on a regional rather than a local genocide; Catch-22 and bad-faith criticism.

The hostages are a goal that they probably would accept as a "mission accomplished", but you ask some good questions here. Like I said in sarker's reply to this same post, starvation doesn't work unless they are somehow managing to feed everyone except Hamas, no small feat.

How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks. I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.

I suppose I am less confident that even if Hamas turned over all the hostages we would return to anything like a pre-10/7 status quo.

How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks.

Is it so difficult to believe that under conditions of starvation people might organize even outside existing power structures to try and secure food?

I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.

What does "fundamentally" mean here? Is there a gene Palestinians have that makes them hate Israelis?

Is it so difficult to believe that under conditions of starvation people might organize even outside existing power structures to try and secure food?

Not unbelievable at all, no. This is the nature of guerilla warfare, though. With no uniforms and a scattered organizational structure, maybe no one can tell. I would think we could trust Israeli intelligence to indicate that Hamas is still operational, since they seemed to quell concerns about Iran after the strikes, but maybe the Israelis don't listen to their intelligence when deciding what to do.

There is no gene that makes Palestinians hate Israelis, but I don't see any off-ramp in Palestinian animosity towards Israelis. Most people in Palestine support Hamas and support what they do/did. A relatively hands-off approach to Gaza with serious checkpoints and the occasional bloody and awful incident at the hands of the Israelis didn't make Palestinians hate Israel any less. I think it's unrealistic to expect Israelis to lift all restrictions and also have a perfect track record, not that they're that guiltless.

So I mean, if you don't want rocket attacks every day and terrorists next door plotting attacks on you, what do you do? I dunno. I guess my idea right now would be to do a complete sweep of the entire area, take every cache and every loose weapon, and heavily restrict incoming supplies, since the West Bank appears to be successfully disarmed and helpless. But I don't think Israel is doing that, if the "arming gangs" thing that coffee_enjoyer posted is to be believed. It happened in Syria, so I could believe it.

But how is starving babies supposed to deal with Hamas?

Starving babies is incidental to the overall strategy. There is no way to starve Hamas without starving babies (that we have found) because Hamas rules the territory, thus Hamas always eats first, and second, and third, then maybe a few babies get some morsels.

With something this complicated it is incumbent on critics to offer at least the skeleton of an alternative proposal so that it can be critiqued. Just saying something is bad is woefully inadequate. Do you think Israel hasn't had a meeting where someone brought up the point that starving children is not good optics (at the very least, if not also brought up the morality of it)? Of course not. They've had hundreds of such meetings. Notably the people who were giving aid to Gaza before didn't really even try to ask the question of "how do we get food to civilians without paying and feeding Hamas?" They just were like "here Hamas here is a buffet and some rocket assembly materials."

Ethics aside, it makes sense as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to making Hamas go away, although it would be a lot more workable if there was an escape hatch available for people to leave Gaza and move anywhere else in the region. Theoretically, a bad enough famine would depopulate the entirety of Gaza and eliminate Hamas that way, but this would be very bad for Israel's international standing compared to a scenario where Gaza is depopulated in a less deadly way.

I agree that simply killing every Palestinian would entail eliminating Hamas, but I am not convinced that killing, say, 10% of Palestinians will do that. I am especially doubtful that starving Palestinian babies will bring an army to its knees, on account of babies not being part of the army.

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is purposely targeting babies to starve? I thought it was a figure of speech to dramatize the ones suffering the most from general failure to distribute food in enough quantities.

In the case of it being a figure of speech, starvation has long been a legitimate tool to bring armies to their knees. The problem there is that Hamas is not an army and likely has a large stockpile that will outlast the entire population of Gaza, unless Israel can figure out how to feed the civilian populace and not feed Hamas, somehow. Since facts are lacking and there is an information war happening, I don't know if that's what they're trying to do. I usually doubt it when people are trying to convince me that Israel is actually just full of moral monsters who like being evil. That's not even true when it comes to amoral more-evil-than-good regimes like most colonial powers in the early 20th century or modern day China. I don't know that the populace is united enough to implement genocidal tactics, either.

But that's not really what interests me. If you think starvation is a bad tactic for dealing with Hamas, that's totally fine, and I think I probably agree with you. I just wonder what tactics would be good for dealing with Hamas. What should Israel do?

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is purposely targeting babies to starve?

I think the best case scenario here is that Israel is criminally negligent when it comes to avoiding starving babies. Certainly there are starving babies.

starvation has long been a legitimate tool to bring armies to their knees.

Agreed, but again, how is starving babies going to bring an army to its knees?

But that's not really what interests me. If you think starvation is a bad tactic for dealing with Hamas, that's totally fine, and I think I probably agree with you. I just wonder what tactics would be good for dealing with Hamas. What should Israel do?

There's only three options I see here. The first is to kill the Palestinians, which would be a horror that Israel would not recover from. The second is to move them, which is impossible because nobody is foolish enough to take millions of Palestinians.

The third:

When Kahane wasn’t condemning normie Zionists for having contempt for the Arabs, he liked to call them dogs. Not the most original metaphor, but vivid enough, so let’s run with it. Imagine a dog, not a Pitbull (that’s racist), but a Belgian Shepherd or similar. We observe one person who tries to reason with the dog, discusses with him the categorical imperative, and performs random unsolicited acts of kindness to appeal to its better nature. Another, swarthier person enters, perplexed at this cringe European, and pushes him to the side. He takes a good long look at the dog, walks over and kicks it square in the nuts, returning to high-five his friends. Rinse and repeat for three decades. Who is surprised that the dog is deranged?

What you do with a dog, obviously, is you train it. You don’t respond to its barks and snarls by getting down on all fours and barking back because ‘this is the yard’ and that’s what is done here. How do you train the dog? Well, go find someone who’s good at it, and ask him.

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

Who would do such a thing? Would it even be effective? India, after all, is still a neigh-ungovernable amalgamation of warring peoples. The US just got done trying something like that in Afghanistan and Iraq, to miserable failure. In my opinion your hypothetical Raj would have to be significantly MORE brutal on the population than the current military operations conducted by Israel are to have any hope at success.

You seriously exaggerate the ungovernability of India, your description fits Afghanistan better. Modi has a 75% approval rating. America is way more fractious.

In my opinion your hypothetical Raj would have to be significantly MORE brutal on the population than the current military operations conducted by Israel are to have any hope at success.

The key distinction is that a civilizing mission has an obvious aim that can guide decisionmaking. There is no obvious aim that drives Israeli decisionmaking right now except kicking the dog in the balls. It is entirely not obvious how this is supposed to lead to a long term solution.

The reason it looks aimless is because we are preventing them from taking effective measures though. You're presenting a catch-22

Which effective measures are we talking about?

More comments

Agreed, but again, how is starving babies going to bring an army to its knees?

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here. Has there ever been a method devised that starves everyone except for exclusively babies? How is throwing every piece of a cow into a meat grinder going to make ground beef if there are bones inside the cow that don't make ground beef?

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

From where I'm standing, that looks literally impossible. Some dogs are just impossible and dangerous and they get put down, kind of a downer for this metaphor. You'd have to specify what that looks like instead of gesturing vaguely at it for me to take it seriously. How do you get from "kill all Jews which we hate with religious zealotry and take back the Holy Land which they stole from us 70 years ago" to "yeah 2 states are okay, I'm okay with giving up my important holy sites now"?

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here. Has there ever been a method devised that starves everyone except for exclusively babies?

I admit I'm not an expert in siege tactics. However, one modest proposal might be to not order soldiers to fire on people trying to acquire food. That seems like the kind of thing that might cause starving babies on the margin.

From where I'm standing, that looks literally impossible.

I believe the three options I listed are exhaustive, so I'm curious if you think there is a fourth that I missed or if you think one of the other two that I thought was impossible is actually possible. Or perhaps you think they are all impossible?

Some dogs are just impossible and dangerous and they get put down, kind of a downer for this metaphor.

Indeed, but as the article suggests, there are people who have managed to train this particular dog.

You'd have to specify what that looks like instead of gesturing vaguely at it for me to take it seriously. How do you get from "kill all Jews which we hate with religious zealotry and take back the Holy Land which they stole from us 70 years ago" to "yeah 2 states are okay, I'm okay with giving up my important holy sites now"?

The Germans famously also wanted to kill (all?) Jews and now they perhaps kowtow excessively. Japan was raping Nanking and now they produce anime. It is possible for a foreign power to change culture, drastically.

I believe the three options I listed are exhaustive, so I'm curious if you think there is a fourth that I missed or if you think one of the other two that I thought was impossible is actually possible. Or perhaps you think they are all impossible?

I can't think of a fourth option that wouldn't just kick the can down the road. The first two are technically possible, but not many people would opt for it, as it's basically a worst case scenario.

The Germans famously also wanted to kill (all?) Jews and now they perhaps kowtow excessively. Japan was raping Nanking and now they produce anime. It is possible for a foreign power to change culture, drastically.

Those both involved a huge amount of death and destruction and both of those nations ended up surrendering. If that's the solution we're going with, how much of a limited amount of your first option would you tolerate? Shooting people acquiring food is absolutely on the table for that one. I guess the end state there is an impromptu group of civilians form and say that they're tired of getting bombed and that they will become the government and carry on the policing of their radicals, including any Hamas remnants, so that terrorist attacks stop happening.

Those both involved a huge amount of death and destruction and both of those nations ended up surrendering

My back of the envelope calculation suggests Gaza is somewhere between the relative death tolls of Japan and Germany. I doubt Hamas is going to surrender if you kick them harder in the balls.

I guess the end state there is an impromptu group of civilians form and say that they're tired of getting bombed and that they will become the government and carry on the policing of their radicals, including any Hamas remnants, so that terrorist attacks stop happening.

This is simply impossible given the Palestinian psychological makeup. I don't even think the Israelis are banking on this. Happy to place bets on this not happening.

More comments

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