site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20039 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All of this while the United States mobilizes to fight another war for Israel... but deporting Somalis from Minnesota is just impossible we are told.

I'm not sure if the implication is that this contingent approves of Somali muslims ripping off US/MN welfare programs, a good fraction of that cash ending up being sent as remittances which end up in the hands of groups not exactly known for their love of Israel.

If this is your conspiracy, sure. But quite frankly it doesn't make a ton of sense.

Jews want to live in a multicultural state. Flooding Minnesota with minorities is in line with what they want.

A few Somalis are far less of a threat to jewery than a homogenous society is.

Jews want to live in a multicultural state and so they decided to import a group of (checks notes) virulent antisemites.

That’s your grand theory? Really?

Jews want to live in a multicultural state and so they decided to import a group of (checks notes) virulent antisemites.

Well, supposedly it'll be fine when whites become a minority in America (if we aren't already) despite importing groups of Mestizos, Somalis, Indians, etc. who if not already virulent anti-whites will become so once sufficiently marinated in the elite ideology. Because, the argument goes, instead of being united by hatred of whitey, and using their growing strength — and the white minority's growing weakness — to intensify the anti-white policies already in place, the moment the white population fraction hits 49.9%, a switch will magically flip in the brains of the non-white population, such that they'll suddenly switch over to fighting one another, and they'll be so busy fighting one another, they'll completely forget their hatred of the white minority, so much that they'll supposedly roll back the extant anti-white programs For Reasons.

Now swap that white minority with a Jewish one. (I note that when one does this substitution — in either direction — quite a few people suddenly change their opinion on whether or not a diverse majority is better than a homogenous majority for an unpopular minority.)

Didn’t a Jew, Jacob Frey, become mayor of Minneapolis by exploiting that group’s inter-tribal conflict? So, yes, absolutely.

Much rather than live in a homogenous state where there culture and ethnic background sticks out. They are a naturally cosmopolitan people and naturally gravitate to the most diverse parts of the US and Europe. They are mainly afraid of white homogenous societies, not individual immigrants who might go a bit bonkers. The diversity has never really done any serious harm to jews.

Do you think the modal member of a homogenous white US society would be more or less antisemitic than the modal Somali immigrant?

Do I think a homogenous society is more difficult for ethnic minorities than diverse societies? Absolutely.

Also the worst times for jews have been in all white societies.

That wasn't my question. I asked about the specific muslim somalis that were germane to the discussion.

And to hazard my answer to the question: I think the median WASP is far less antisemitic than even the 95^th percentile most tolerant somali. It's not even close.

Various Somalis are in no way an existential threat to Jews and they would rather live in an area with some Somalis than an all white area.

What do you think "death to the jews" means? Vibes? Essays?

Also the worst times for jews have been in all white societies.

What does Purim celebrate again?

A genocide of persians.

I'm not much for Jewposting but...the explanation for why progressive feminists and pro-LGBT people support it is basically the same and it's not any more flattering to them either. If they can be accused of being short-sighted, why not Jews?

Of course Jews can be accused of anything. But on the one hand there is a claim that they are orchestrating an entire war and at the same time that they are short-sighted enough that they want to willingly add 300K muslims whose policy rounds to "death to the jews".

One can see the "LGBT for Palestine" organizers in a parade and think they are buffoons. But you can't also see them as sophisticated operators playing geopolitical 4D chess. Pick one or the other.

That doesn't make sense. Western countries post-WW2 were much less hostile to Jews than Western countries now. Multiculturalism means a) more Muslims and b) more other foreigners who don't feel post-war guilt about the Holocaust. Aliyah from countries like France is going up as they become more multicultural, as French Jews flee their new Muslim neighbours.

After the establishment of Israel, Middle Eastern Jews fled (or were expelled from) ethnically and religiously diverse countries in order to move to Israel. Diversity means more ethnic conflict overall, which means more ethnic scapegoating of rich groups (i.e. Ashkenazim). Whereas a tiny Jewish population in a homogenous country are much less of a threat.

It's a mistake to overinterpret what happened in Germany. Hitler's rise was driven by Germany's humiliation in WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, and the growing threat of Communism. Other fascist regimes like Italy or Spain were fine with the Jews. Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.

Jews have been kicked out of 110 countries. They have been in conflict with Europeans since the roman times. The jews were not happy in catholic spain and worked with the muslims. Jewish communists killed millions of christians in Eastern Europe. They were regularly banned from various European countries.

They do prefer a jewish ethnostate to diversity.

There was just as much reciprocal persecution of Jews in Arab and Persian lands, in fact 18th century Western European Jewish travelers to Jewish communities in Persia lamented the extreme persecution of the local Jewish community, which was worse than anything in Europe at the time. A specific animus against ‘European Christians’ seems unfounded.

The difference is that outright expulsion was rarer in the Middle East because those were already relatively confessionally diverse societies with various random leftover minority groups, both ethnic and religious, from Assyrian Christians to Samaritans to Zoroastrians to Alawites to Eastern Catholics etc etc. The ruling elite might viciously oppress minority groups but these societies didn’t (until the late 19th century) generally consider the possibility of outright ethnic cleansing. It is unclear to me that being expelled is actually worse than being extremely cruelly oppressed by the way.

By contrast, European Christian societies were more exclusive, regularly fighting wars of religion that were explicitly designed to cleanse territories of other flavors of Christianity until comparatively recently, and Jews were often caught up in that fervor. Ethnically and linguistically they were often still very much diverse, but religiously they were more exclusive, and they fought more internal wars, which again have a habit of leading to ethnic cleansing regardless. In addition, and this is again rarely noted even though it’s obvious, the “110 countries” are mostly European because a large swathe of Mitteleuropa consisted of hundreds of tiny micro states for centuries, whereas the Middle East was mostly divided (at the macro level at least) into much larger polities like the grand caliphates and later Ottoman Empire.

It makes enough sense to the jews to have them advocate for it in their own words.

What does that mean even mean for 'the Jews' to advocate for it? Do they have an international spokesman? Did they take a vote?

Unless of course you mean that you can cherry-pick some examples of left-wing American Jews and conclude that all leftist politics is an invention of the ethnic group you hate?

Antisemitism was just an idiosyncrasy of Hitler, not a law of history.

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic? I suppose there is a colourable argument that Disraeli's OG One Nation Conservatism counts as right-populist, but it isn't a central example.

Jews really are over-represented (by somewhere around 10x, as you would expect given high-end estimates of Ashkenazi IQ if we do live in an IQ-meritocracy) in the allegedly-meritocratic elite, so if you think that the allegedly-meritocratic elite is a conspiracy, then it is a Jewish conspiracy.

There is a long history of homogeneous societies turning on Jews because domestic politics required a scapegoat. Admittedly it hasn't happened in an English-speaking Christian society since the late 18th century, and not in a murderous way since 1290.

Given that the Ivies famously had a cap on Jewish enrollment, if anything it would be an anti-meritocratic conspiracy on the other side.

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?

Do the mid-century fascists count as populist? Because if so, the Italian and Spanish fascists weren't antisemitic, as I mentioned. But why are we limiting ourselves to the past? How about basically all the national populist parties in Europe right now? Reform UK isn't antisemitic. The National Rally in France isn't antisemitic. Fidesz in Hungary isn't. Not Brothers of Italy. Nor, of course, is the MAGA movement.

by somewhere around 10x

I would love to see your workings-out for this claim.

There is a long history of homogeneous societies turning on Jews because domestic politics required a scapegoat.

That's pretty much it. They are a market-dominant minority that are distinctive enough to be considered an outgroup but not so distinctive to be considered a fargroup.

There is a history of homogenous societies turning on Jews but there was also plenty of antisemitism in corners of diverse empires like the Russian and Ottoman Empires (not so much in the capitals, at least most of the time, but certainly in many of the provinces). In 1980 America was far more diverse than Western Europe and yet had little antisemitism.

In general the “Jews want diversity because Jews do better in diverse countries” point is extremely contrived, it’s gained currency only because it’s promoted both by Jewish progressives who want to defend multiculturalism in a weekly Reform temple sermon and by far-right antisemites who want to ‘explain’ the motive for why Jews supposedly want to destroy formerly-homogenous white countries with mass immigration. There isn’t much evidence for it or against it. Some Jews supported mass immigration, but so did plenty of powerful indigenous Europeans both in Europe and in North America. Jews were more progressive than many other groups on immigration in the mid-20th century of course, but they were also more progressive on economic and other issues (eg being very overrepresented in economic leftist movements), which suggests it wasn’t an immigration-specific thing.

Gaullism?

Good answer, although De Gaulle turned against Israel in the 1960s in a way which would be considered anti-Semitic by 21st century American standards.

decisively proving that the 21st century definition of "antisemite" is "one disliked by Jews" rather than the inverse

and of course by that standard any "populist movement" is going to rub against the ruling establishment and Jews in or adjacent to said ruling ruling establishment will identify it as "antisemitic"

Can anyone point to a historical (right- or left-) populist movement in a culturally Christian country that didn't eventually turn anti-semitic?

While if you look hard enough you can find a anti-Semitism anywhere, I don't think the American Populist Party of the 1890s ever gained strong such associations. And I'm less familiar with them, but most other populists and even strongmen I can think of in the Western Hemisphere don't IIRC have strong such associations either (Peron, Chavez, even Pinochet).

I think this may be another funny case of Simpson's paradox. What you're missing, is that Jews are not a monolith.

If you are elite and an allogene, multicultural societies are better for you because they minimize the prestige of being part of the indigenous polity, and thus create more opportunities for you. They're "meritocratic" as opposed to "aristocratic".

This comes with drawbacks, including sectarian violence and the associated public safety problems. But if you're an elite you don't care because you're insulated from such things anyways.

Who cares if your coethnics are being gunned down in the streets? If anything that's more reason people shouldn't be allowed to sneer at you in the country club under any circumstances.

Lebanon might pay a very high price for being such a divided society, but for the one guy that gets a guaranteed government office because he's a specific minority, it's a pretty good deal.

Lebanon might pay a very high price for being such a divided society, but for the one guy that gets a guaranteed government office because he's a specific minority, it's a pretty good deal.

Except there aren't any countries, past or current, where Jews have benefitted from the kind of ethno-religious power sharing that we see in Lebanon or Singapore.

Israel and Russia exist.

Used to happen in New York, and I think in many big US cities. Jews, Irish, Italians all had their well-recognised machines.

In Singapore the power distribution is relatively ‘fairly’ distributed by proportion; the Chinese are in charge, obviously, but they are also the majority. In Lebanon the outcome of the Civil War was an arrangement that is tripartite and so not strictly proportionate but certainly moreso than it was before (and part of the instability is precisely that the Maronites have fewer children but cling onto the power they have, even still). There aren’t many historic examples of states where a large minority of the population (more than 25%, say) have been Jewish. The highest it got in prewar Eastern Europe was 6-10% really, the latter in Poland on the eve of the Second World War. There just aren’t that many Jews.

Lebanon is only good for the elite because they can flee with their ill gotten gains to Switzerland or Dubai after leaving office. If they had to stay in Lebanon the incentives would be very different.

Partially because Lebanese folks, once removed from Lebanon, are truly exceptionally nice people to live and work with. Never met a single one that was an asshole.

Remarkable really how that works.

Most Lebanese expats in America are Christian Maronite elites, many of them even left before the civil war blew everything up. Places that received more Muslim immigrants - especially Australia where about 40% of the Australian Lebanese population are hardline Sunni Muslims - have problems with them.

True, but that's also the general criticism people make of diaspora minorities, that when the going gets tough, all the "elite human capital" just flees and the autochtones have to deal with it because they can't go anywhere else.

I think it's as fair to generalize it to all manners of cosmopolitans. It creates the same bad incentives where you go from place to place extracting and moving away when there's nothing more to extract.

This problem is something Nationalism purports to solve by forcibly integrating the nation and punishing the disloyalty of people who would use ethnicity, wealth or other escape hatches. Whether it's justified in doing so or whether it's successful are ancillary questions, but it's why people do what they do.

Haven’t the actual leaders mostly stayed in Lebanon? I know Samir Geagea has, despite assassination attempts and prison sentences.

The patriarchs themselves generally remain, but their large extended clans, daughters, grandchildren, many sons, cousins and so on often spend substantial time abroad and have European citizenship.

I'm not sure if the implication is that this contingent approves of Somali muslims ripping off US/MN welfare programs,

Why would it be? He's pointing out that a tiny group of people can get the US government to commit drastic action, even when it's unpopular with most people, while things that are popular with the voting base of the current government somehow never get done.

It's a conspiracy, because every time someone points to the disproportionate influence of the tony group, they get called a conspiracy theorist.

But that very same group can’t dislodge people fraudulently extracting billions of dollars and sending it to their sworn enemies?

And we know for a fact that they share your assessment of the threat the Somalis represent? Also "sworn enemies" seems like a stretch, didn't Israel formally recognize Somaliland recently?

I feel like one doesn't need to reach hard to think that people chanting "Death to the X" aren't a thread to X.

Was everyone posting #KillAllMen a threat to men?

Sure, such chants probably mean they don't like them very much, but even murderous hate is not the same thing as being a threat.

Murderous hate seems like a fairly good barometer of being a threat, especially when used in comparison to a different group of people (say, WASPs) who are observed to have a lot less murderous hate.

So the answer to my #KillAllMen question is "yes"?

Somalis often consider Somaliland a Jewish conspiracy lol.

So much tension could be relieved, if all the other conspiracy theories went like this:

- There's a part of our country that's actually functional

- It must be the Jews!

IIRC the Somalis in Minnesota are not fans of the idea of an independent Somaliland.

"Our lands were taken from us before, and God willing, we may one day seek them." - Rep. Ilhan Omar

The idea that they should retake Somaliland is actually the most charitable interpretation of that speech; the uncharitable interpretation is that she was suggesting that they should retake all of "Greater Somalia", including parts of modern Ethiopia and Kenya.

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