site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5hr ago (text post)   287 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There are conflicting reports on if Iran was starting to concede it's nuclear stance during negotiations last week.

On the one hand, Oman said Iran was going to reduce it's stockpile.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb,” said Albusaidi, describing the understanding as “something completely new” compared to the previous nuclear deal negotiated under former US President Barack Obama.

He said the negotiations have produced an agreement on “zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling it a breakthrough that makes the enrichment argument “less relevant.”

On existing stockpiles inside Iran, Albusaidi said that “there is agreement now that this will be down-blended to the lowest-level possible … and converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.”

“I think we have agreement on that, in my view,” he added.

Wall Street Journal says the opposite though. Laurence Norman, WSJ reporter in Germany, says, "My understanding comes from non-U.S. officials close to the talks as well as what Washington has said. This is what we have from 3 people."

Iran came to Geneva on Thursday with a draft text of a few pages as it had been asked. It did not permit the U.S. or others to keep the text. It was planning to do so Monday at the technical talks. But they talked through what was in it. But the draft text was not the key text

Attached to the text was a single piece of paper, which Iran described as its 10 year nuclear plan. The text was based around the idea that as Iran's enrichment needs expanded, it's enrichment should be permitted to expand. The paper set out an ambitious set of targets or expanding its civilian nuclear program. The new version of the Khondab reactor (formerly known as Arak heavy water reactor) would be completed. A number of other long-planned, never-built research and power reactors would be put into operation.

In order to fuel those supplies, Iran would need to run 30 cascades of IR-6 advanced centrifuges Tehran said. That's more than 5,000 advanced centrifuges. Iran would need to be able to enrich up to 20% to meet the demands. That is what Iran was proposing.

Let's compare that for a moment to JCPOA. For the first decade under that accord, Iran was permitted around 6.000 IR-1 basic centrifuges. For 15 years, its enrichment purity cap was 3.67%. In other words, Iran was saying the enrichment deal shld be weaker than the Iran deal.

Overall, I don't think we can take it for granted that Iran was capitulating during talks.

Haaretz recently reported on a trove of new documents pertaining to the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish Zionists. They are quite interesting, as they provide evidence toward the disputed claim that the Zionists used a conscious strategy of terror to expel the Muslim and Christian inhabitants.

The most important documents for closer historical examination were those that dealt with the War of Independence. One document that stood out among the papers that had been tossed into the garbage was written by Yitzhak Broshi, commander of Golani's 12th Battalion in the war. It was an order from July 1948 that Broshi sent commanders of the brigade's companies that were engaged in combat in the northern part of the country, titled "Conduct in captured villages where there is a population." The contents of this document are not the type of material one finds in Israeli history books. Broshi informed the officers that after an Arab village was captured, identification certificates were to be issued to the inhabitants. If someone transferred their certificate to another person, both were to be shot. If someone did not report on time for military inspection, they were to be shot and their home was to be blown up. If an "outside Arab" was found in a village, according to Broshi's directives, he was to be shot immediately. In general, the rule was to shoot "every 10th man" in a captured village where outsiders were found. In addition, all the men in any household in which property stolen from Jews was found were to be executed.

Moreover, while there was an order to raze villages, in some cases that was not enough. For example, when it came to Arab a-Zabah, a Bedouin community in the Lower Galilee, not a soul or a trace was to remain. "Every Arab among the Zabahim is to be killed," the order stated. These were not vague directives conveyed by word of mouth. This one and others appeared in "black on white" and were signed by Broshi in his handwriting. In another order dated July 1948, Broshi instructed his troops to mount a search for Arabs who might have hidden in the Mount Turan area of the Lower Galilee, after the site had already been conquered. The order was: "Kill anyone who is hiding."

Among the documents is one stating that "Arabs in a small number are wandering about in the [captured] villages," apparently to collect possessions and food. As per the instructions in the document: "The area is to be cleansed of Arabs." Under the heading "The method," the document adds that "every Arab who will be met with is to be annihilated."

Kotzer's vast collection, some of which was quoted above, is part of a trove of thousands of legal documents from 1948 that were declassified by the military courts due to recent procedures initiated by the Akevot Institute. This rich resource, which was approved for publication by the Military Censor, sheds new light on the history of the Palestinian refugee question. Moreover, it completely dispels the Israeli narrative according to which the country's Arab inhabitants fled of their own volition at the behest of their own leaders. Although some such instructions were indeed disseminated, and some people left at their own initiative – it can now be confirmed, on the basis of an impressive range of evidence, that the IDF expelled Arabs systematically and violently during the War of Independence. The expulsion was effected by massacres, murder and a variety of moves aimed at terrorizing this civilian population and expediting its flight.

There are a number of insightful things here that are a bit too long to quote. It mentions one Shmuel Lehis who massacred 40 Palestinians, becoming the only Israeli convicted of a war crime in this period. He received just one year in jail (in practice: hanging out at a military base) before being pardoned. He went on to work with the World Zionist Organization and became the president of the Jewish Agency in 1978. He later won the Chairman of the Knesset prize, the highest honor bestowed by the Israeli Parliament. Another interesting file involves the commander of the most prominent brigade at the time conveying the dominant expulsion strategy: "How do you expel a village? You lop off the ear of one of the Arabs before everyone else's eyes, and they all flee. In practice, no village was evacuated without stabbing someone in the stomach or by means of similar methods. We won thanks only to the fear of the Arabs, and they were fearful only of deeds that were not in accordance with the law."

I think these documents will be influential in future discourse about the Palestinian Question and the Israel Question. How justified is the Palestinian drive to take back their land from forces of terror (or their inheritors)? How justified is the existence of Israel? Should the world reward a state for taking land through ethnicity-targeted terrorism? Or are these events simply too old to inform present opinion? Comparing these events to Ukraine, we might ask: if Russia were to begin a strategy of terror bombing civilian homes, so as to lead Ukrainians to flee en masse, in how many years should we forget they they’ve done this and welcome them into the World Order?

Palestinian drive to take back their land

Are you prepared to identify exactly what land is implicated by the "Palestinian drive to take back their land"? For example, does it include, Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.?

Also, how did that land come to be "Palestinian" in your view? Was it just a matter of ethnically cleansing the previous inhabitants and staying there for a while? Or was more involved?

It would be great if you could set forth the underlying principles -- if any.

Isn't this the norm during WW2? What is the expected norm during the 1940s on military tactics related to civilian targets?

It may go against the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) in the following ways:

  • rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious conviction and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally forbidden.

  • It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army [interpreted at Nuremberg to apply to civilians]

  • It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion

  • The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

  • No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible

  • the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

The Nuremberg Court notes that by 1939 this was “recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war”.

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