site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22600 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

That doesn't seem to follow. Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean you have no support. Presumably there were more than two votes in your favor, but if it's you and your bully friend against literally the entire world it might be time to start asking "are we the baddies?"

Also, to the extent Europe is unsafe for Jewish people, it's approximately 100% due to mass migration from Muslim countries.

Also, to the extent Europe is unsafe for Jewish people, it's approximately 100% due to mass migration from Muslim countries.

The people of Israel dont seem to share this confidence.

That doesn't seem to follow. Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean you have no support. Presumably there were more than two votes in your favor, but if it's you and your bully friend against literally the entire world it might be time to start asking "are we the baddies?"

I have considered this and have found the hypothesis lacking. Islam appears to be the cause of most of the baddieness in the region, and when it comes to my country in large numbers causes more bad stuff here.

The people of Israel dont seem to share this confidence.

They can hardly be considered an impartial arbiter on the subject.

I have considered this and have found the hypothesis lacking. Islam appears to be the cause of most of the baddieness in the region, and when it comes to my country in large numbers causes more bad stuff here.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but most of the world is not Muslim, so when you get the entire world voting one way, and the only two countries voting the other are a direct party to a dispute and their greatest ally, I'd say we need more evidence then "Islam bad".

Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but most of the world is not Muslim, so when you get the entire world voting one way, and the only two countries voting the other are a direct party to a dispute and their greatest ally, I'd say we need more evidence then "Islam bad".

The other side of the aisle is full of the kind of countries who voted Yes on the "food as a human right" proclamation that was essentially both worthless and if actually carried out, with its ban on pesticides, ruinous. They should properly be modeled as essentially unthinking actors that can be convinced to vote for anything that can be summarized dishonestly as empathetic.

Then maybe it's a bad idea to use their voting pattern as evidence that Jewish people are uniquely unsafe around the world?

its ban on pesticides

To avoid confusion, I will point out that this language appears in a March 2017 draft, but not in the version that was actually passed by the General Assembly (with only Israel and the US opposed) in December 2017, and not in the similar 2021 resolution (also passed with only Israel and the US opposed) that was the first result of an Internet search for "united nations food human right". Also, other resolutions in the same vein have passed with Israel and the US not opposed, most recently in 2024.

This is the resolution I reference, with this being the US representative response to such nonsense. Of course it isn't just the attempt of the UN to assert authority over other organizations on the topic of pesticides but the absurd idea that a bunch of countries doing nothing, expected to do nothing and indeed once passing this vote doing nothing to address world hunger while the vote against does more than every other nation combined in this effort, at least until Trump dismantled USAID but that's another subject. These are not serious people engaged in serious work, they are the purest and most inconsequential symbol of virtue signaling. They are the yapping dog that would not know what to do with itself if it ever caught the mail van, saved from the results of their own actions only by their immense irrelevance.

Your confusion is easily solved by understanding basic jew hatred.

Jew hatred appears to exist all over the place.

I dont see why aside from general dislike of people who are kinda progressive and kinda lame anyone would dislike Jews for a reason other than their Jewishness.

But the progressive and lame countries also hate them. This is telling because they should otherwise be lovers of the Jews.

So generally the problem is obviously Jewishness.

These opinions also undermine Israel.

They also bolster Islam, which hates Jews, but tries to frame it as hate of Israel instead.

So it appears all nonsense to me.

Jew hatred appears to exist all over the place.

In China and India? Does Madagaskar have a seething hatred of Jews?

Look, I'm no stranger to irrational centuries-long ethnic resentments, but if you're saying people who never met a Jewish person in their life, even by proxy, have the opinions they do because of Jew-hatred, all you're accomplishing is making a compelling case for "wow, they must have done something really messed up if everybody hates them".

I have heard of cases where people who have never met Jews and hardly know anything about Jews other than "they're Jews" would gladly join in on the "Jews bad" meme. If everyone is saying Jews bad, it must be deserved, right?

Have you missed the part when I said "even by proxy"?

If everyone is saying Jews bad, it must be deserved, right?

Before we continue, please clarify if you actually believe that the Chinese and Indians are full of hate for the Jews, and that hatred is what explains their UN voting patterns.

I don't think those countries hate Jews nearly as much because of the lack of interaction, but they do like to be part of the coalition that is formed as a result.

I don't think those countries hate Jews nearly as much because of the lack of interaction

So...you do think they hate them, just not as much, correct?

but they do like to be part of the coalition that is formed as a result.

That such a coalition could exist, I can buy. When it supposedly encompasses literally the whole world minus two countries, that's hard to believe. "When you run into an asshole, they're the asshole, when everyone you run into is an asshole, you're the asshole" applies.

Also, to the extent Europe is unsafe for Jewish people, it's approximately 100% due to mass migration from Muslim countries.

Sure, but if there were to be mass migration from Israel, there would be conflict between the groups and the two-tier policing would favor the Muslims. That is, Jews defending themselves would be prosecuted, Jews organizing to defend themselves would be declared terrorists and imprisoned, and Muslim violence against Jews would be ignored.

And no, most of that Muslim migration was not caused by Israel.

Sure, but if there were to be mass migration from Israel, there would be conflict between the groups and the two-tier policing would favor the Muslims.

But it would still place them above native Europeans.

And no, most of that Muslim migration was not caused by Israel.

Yeah, I know. It was 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