site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   19872 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 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.

As we're probably all aware by now, Israel bombed Doha, Qatar this week, in an attempt to assassinate Hamas' leadership resident in the city. There's some dispute over who exactly was killed in the attack, whether any non-Hamas people were hurt, etc. It appears to have been reasonably precise, any collateral damage is in count-on-one-hand territory. It's unclear what impact this will have on the ongoing conflict, or on Israeli relations with Qatar and more importantly with the United States. There's a LOT of conflicting stories out there about who knew what when, did the United States greenlight the attack and plan it, maybe even sending over a ceasefire proposal to bait them into meeting together; or the Israelis acted alone and Trump's team is furious at being left out of the loop.

What this does say is, Qatar has joined the ranks of countries that have no true sovereignty, and can be bombed at will by capable powers. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia; all have come to be considered failed states, where the United States and its allies, or Iran and its proxies, can bomb targets at will and the putative "governments" of such places will merely wring their hands and protest at the United Nations on the topic. Is Qatar now in danger of becoming another country that can be bombed at will? This would mark a major escalation. The countries previously treated as bombing ranges by the great powers were poor, backwards, weak; Qatar is small but it is oil-rich. By Human Development Index countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan were near the very bottom, while Qatar is around the level of Poland.

This represents something shocking, in that Qatar has been historically less hostile to Israel than the Arab average, and is a direct ally of the United States, hosting the largest US base in the middle east. Qatar was actually hosting the Hamas leadership at the quiet behest of the United States, to keep them coherent and on hand rather than chaotic and in Palestine or underground, and wanted to kick them out after 10/7 but was told not to by Israel's protector the United States. Despite all this cooperation, Qatar does not get to decide if Doha will be bombed today, Israel feels it can make that decision with impunity.

The message is being taken in the Muslim world: collaboration will not save you. To quote from an apparently pro-Hamas substack post that popped up in my feed:

Trump directed his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to “inform the Qataris of the impending attack.” So the Qataris knew that America had greenlit an attack on their sovereign territory. They then either allowed the attack to proceed or were too powerless to stop an attack on their own soil. Either way, it reveals who is actually in control of the country with just over a quarter of a million citizens but enormous natural resources.

The Israeli bombing in Doha serves an important lesson: resisting Israeli barbarism is a high-risk, high-reward endevaour. Those who resist, as the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the Yemenis have done, will undoubtedly suffer losses — but, most importantly, they will be able to look themselves in the eye with dignity. The collaborators, however, will not only be publicly humiliated but will ultimately be destroyed once they have outlived their usefulness. For the four Arab states that have normalised as part of the so-called Abraham Accords, the fate of Qatar should serve as an example.

So the question then arises: why did the Israelis commit such a brazen and criminal attack on a country aligned with their interests? The short answer is that they intended to send a stark message: they can bomb a country even when it is aligned with them. As if to erase any doubt about the message behind the attack on Qatar, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana posted a tweet — in Arabic, no less — with an attached video of the targeted building in flames, accompanied by a blunt caption: “This is a message to all of the Middle East.” Take note: the tweet makes no mention of the Hamas leadership in Doha; its sole focus is the Middle East.

This is the fairly reasonable interpretation being offered by the insane lunatic fringes, the excellent propaganda handed to the Islamists. Israel as of now claims power of life and death over the citizens of Qatar, they used it mostly righteously on this occasion, and they may continue to do so. Or they may not. And that is not for the Qataris to judge, they can only accept the decision. And this to a US ally. Is there a country in the middle east where they would not have launched such an attack? On principle, or merely because the cost/benefit wasn't there yet? Does Israel claim the right to kill any Arab anywhere in the Middle East? Or perhaps they would not blanche at killing Arabs in France or Germany.

This has been an uncomfortable question for me since the Bin Laden raids, but it feels more pressing than ever today:

Under what circumstances would you feel that a foreign drone strike targeting a terrorist living or operating in the United States was justified and acceptable?

Consider some examples of individuals considered terrorists who live openly in the United States.

Fethullah Gulen, purportedly behind a coup attempt in Turkey that lead to the deaths of hundreds, lived for years not a few hours from me. If the Turks had decided to bomb Saylorsburg, PA to get him, or did it today to get his successor, would that be acceptable?

I've personally been to events at which the Dalai Lama spoke. The ChiComms consider him a dangerous separatist terrorist. If they had bombed the college basketball stadium or the NYC auditorium at which I saw him speak, would that have been acceptable? What about Uyghur leader Anwar Turani? Or Guratpwat Singh Pannum the Sikh leader seeking to establish Khalistan?

Zelensky has traveled to the United States multiple times, if the Russians blew up his limo would that be acceptable? What about the reverse, if Ukrainian nationalist psychos had shot down Putin's plane over Alaska?

My own view is simple. None of these are acceptable to me, as a US citizen, even if I dislike some of these groups. The Schelling point of sovereignty is maintaining a legitimate monopoly on violence within the territory, if the United States gives that up it can never be gotten back. The United States, and the United States alone, gets to make the decision as to who enjoys the protection of our laws. No other country can assassinate or bomb its enemies on our soil, not if we remain a sovereign country. If it wishes to request their extradition, they may do so, but it is at our own pleasure that we will accede to or refuse such a demand. If any other country claims the right to kill on our soil, then the protection of our government is meaningless, what is to stop any other country from killing a citizen? The Schelling fence between non-citizen and citizen on our soil feels significantly weaker than the one between on our soil and not on our soil. We've already seen how the citizenship distinction can evaporate abroad.

I hope that Israel will be able to make amends with Qatar, and that this will not lead to further degradation of the political situation in the Middle East.

For me assassinations of people that are in the game is nothingburger. It is when uninvolved people are hurt that I get worked up. As long as it is kept discreet. The russians operated with tacit approval in UK until they started getting sloppy.

Israel are morons in this case because it is too overt. And they are doing their best to destroy every shred of goodwill that exists.

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