site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17065 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.

The natural state is that the vast majority of goyim hate them. The fact that some of the boomers actually like them speaks volumes to the effectiveness of propaganda. Without the propaganda the US would probably have had bouts of pogroms. Christians and jews are naturally incompatible. Getting sections of Christians to like jews is an impressive feat of propaganda.

Christians and jews are naturally incompatible

But Christians worship a Jew as the son of God? There's a certain kind of esoteric 'And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon Englands mountains green' Christianity but in terms of base elements, Christianity is pretty Jewish.

Is Islam pagan because its origin involved pagan elements and pagan characters? Or is it Jewish because it worships Moses and Abraham?

Jesus Christ is defined by his opposition to the Pharisees who are essentially the progenitors of Rabbinic Judaism, which is what we call Jewish today.

All that remains is the ethnic element, which frankly is tenuous given the distance between the Levantine people of the time and most Jews today.

There's a common cultural ancestry between Abrahamisms, that's really about it.

The Big Guy of Islam is an Arab, not a Jew. The Big Guy of Christianity is a Jewish rabbi, a Jewish fundamentalist populist who (in the doctrine compiled largely by his Jewish disciples) claims that he fulfilled a Jewish prophecy.

Islam has pagan elements with all the djinn and weirdness but its explicitly monotheistic and denounces paganism (Judaism and Christianity too, to a lesser extent). Thus we can judge that on balance it's not pagan. Islam is not keen on pagans at all, they despise pagans and oppress them whenever they have the chance.

It's silly to say that a religion that worships a Jew first and foremost is not Jewish. If the predominant Christian stance today was 'fuck Jews', then it would be a different matter. Instead, it's Christian countries who've been most supportive of Jews, most supportive of Israel.

What's a Jew exactly, in this respect?

There's a sense in which Jesus is a Jew, even a Rabbi, depending on how you play with definitions, but that's not the sense in which he's any part of Rabbinic Judaism.

In the context of the Bible, the core dogma of Christianity, is there any serious debate as to whether Jesus is a Jew or not?

In John 4:22, Jesus says, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” The use of “we” clearly includes Himself among the Jewish people.

Matthew 1:1 states, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” establishing His lineage within the Jewish people.

Luke 1:32–33 affirms that Jesus would inherit “the throne of his father David” and reign over “the house of Jacob forever,” linking Him to the Davidic and Jewish royal line.

Hebrews 7:14 confirms, “It is manifest that our Lord came from the tribe of Judah,” underscoring His Jewish tribal identity.

Sounds pretty Jewish to me! Many modern Jewish people have swapped out a lot of haplogroups but they clearly identify as Jews. Others identify them as Jews. Christians identify them as Jews. Lots of peoples have moved back and forth, changed over time. The label fits the bottle. Jesus was Jewish and Christianity worships a Jew, their dogma emphasises this in pretty clear terms.

You didn't answer my question. What is a Jew?

What is an Englishman? A silly question to ask, there are gradations of more and less English depending on context without any single definition being agreed upon. In this context and in all reasonable contexts Jesus is Jewish.

The English are one of the main ethnicities of the British nation who are descendants of the mixture of Anglo-Saxons and Brittonic Roman descendants that formed the main culture of the region now called England since the Norman invasions.

Being English isn't a complicated matter because it's not also a religion and they haven't been scattered in such a way as to dilute their ethnos with many vastly different cultures being claimants to the heritage of the original ones.

Unfortunately this is true of Jews so the question is relevant. Because there are ways in which Jesus is a Jew (such as the original levantine ethnicity) and ways in which he is not (such as followers of rabbinical Judaism).

I believe you're equivocating between these categories to make an essentially nonsensical point.

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