site banner
PaperclipPerfector  26d ago (text post)   30314 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026

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.

'During' implies that it had already started; they weren't taking any actions against Germany prior to the German government trying to kill them!

And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.

Furthermore, not defending Israel means placing the survival of the Jewish people dependent on the opinions of the Gentiles, unless a sovereign Jewish state exists elsewhere.

Who cares? There are plenty of ethnicities who do not have a sovereign state of their own, and the Jews lasted for quite a while without one. I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years, given what they've done with the state that they actually got.

however, my understanding of it is something along the lines of "Never again will the goyim be in a position to tell us 'You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.'."

Most people in the world interpreted Never Again to mean that there would never be a targeted campaign of extermination on the basis of ethnicity ever again, not that the Jews would have a free pass to commit a holocaust themselves in order to secure more lebensraum.

In your 'Jewish state in America' proposal, would these conditions hold?

Ask the Americans - I only raised that proposal as an alternative to my actual position, so I don't have particularly strong feelings on this topic. But that said... given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own (have fun defending the actions of Ehud Barak) - they'd need a caretaker government for quite some time until things settled down. Personally I don't think they should have any kind of nuclear power at all, but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source, and I don't believe they should become a nuclear power besides). No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!

And if Netanyahu's government were removed from power and a new Israeli government were established in the pre-1967 territory, or at least the areas allocated to Israel under the U. N. partition plan....

No, my actual proposal is that they simply become members of a restored Palestine with full franchise. I'm not an ethnic supremacist, and I don't support ethnic supremacism for jews either - they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world. Otherwise, they can get the same treatment that nazis and ethnic cleansers of any other ethnicity receive - and given that most of the jews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.

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