site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   26909 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel intelligence agencies literally used a sitting US senator as an asset to manipulate the president.

WSJ: To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action.

https://x.com/katiadoyl/status/2030126333636809191

This is in the wall street journal, they don't even try to hide it. And why would they? They make it clear they're the king, Israel speaks and the west listens. Many of our politicians are actively training with foreign spies to control American politics and they're flaunting it.

Every once in a while they go oops and say the quiet part out a little too loud (like Rubio and Johnson admitting that Israel pushed us into the war before now trying to claim the opposite) but it's barely disguised. And if this is what they're public about, just imagine all the things happening in the shadows.

This is in the wall street journal, they don't even try to hide it. And why would they? They make it clear they're the king, Israel speaks and the west listens. Many of our politicians are actively training with foreign spies to control American politics and they're flaunting it.

What exactly is your objection? That Israel attempts to influence the US government? That it lobbies friendly members of the American legislature to lobby the US president? That it spies on people? That it uses that information to improve its influence efforts?

I really would like to know exactly what you believe Israel is doing wrong here and why.

Certainly one could make the case that countries shouldn't try to lobby or influence the governments of other countries. Do you share that view?

Do you believe it's normal for sitting politicians to collude with foreign spy agencies, including access to classified information that their own domestic intelligence won't share (or maybe can't share, we're just assuming that Israeli intelligence isn't giving any fake information to Lindsey Graham to manipulate him towards Israeli interests after all) in order to manipulate the feds?

I'm not sure I would call that normal lobbying.

Do you believe it's normal for sitting politicians to collude with foreign spy agencies

Not in the US. Here is the definition of "collude"

cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

Now kindly answer my questions:

  1. What exactly is your objection? That Israel attempts to influence the US government? That it lobbies friendly members of the American legislature to lobby the US president? That it spies on people? That it uses that information to improve its influence efforts?

  2. Certainly one could make the case that countries shouldn't try to lobby or influence the governments of other countries. Do you share that view?

  3. Are you claiming that Israel has done something unlawful? If so, exactly what law was broken? (I won't ask if you believe Israel did something secret, since you said "they don't even try to hide it"

I'm trying to understand your position here, because I strongly suspect that you don't actually have a principled objection to Israel's conduct.

Not him

What exactly is your objection? That Israel attempts to influence the US government?

Yes, especially in ways that are obviously detrimental to the citizens of the United States, and beneficial to the citizens of Israel.

That it lobbies friendly members of the American legislature to lobby the US president?

Yes. Do it yourself. Send your own lobbiests to argue on their own merits. Members of the American legislature should be doing things that benefit the citizens of America, not the citizens of Israel.

That it spies on people?

Yes. Don't spy on us.

That it uses that information to improve its influence efforts?

Yes. Again, American politicians should be acting for the American people. Not getting (((influenced))) to help the Israeli people.

Certainly one could make the case that countries shouldn't try to lobby or influence the governments of other countries. Do you share that view?

Yes. Leave other counties alone. Self determination is a virtue.

Are you claiming that Israel has done something unlawful? If so, exactly what law was broken? (I won't ask if you believe Israel did something secret, since you said "they don't even try to hide it"

No laws have been broken, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Given you post here, there are good odds you lean right, thus, there are good odds you find many practices of your society amoral, which are not illegal.

Do you find drag queen-story hour at the library upsetting? Or 12 year olds being put on puberty blockers against the wishes of one of their parents? Those things aren't specifically illegal, so by this logic you can't have a problem with it lol.

Yes, especially in ways that are obviously detrimental to the citizens of the United States, and beneficial to the citizens of Israel.

Ok, so here's the question. It was reported that Saudia Arabia's senior royalty repeatedly lobbied Donald Trump to attack Iran. How many posts have you made complaining about this?

American politicians should be acting for the American people. Not getting (((influenced))) to help the Israeli people.

So I take you object to Jewish Americans and Christian Zionists lobbying the US government to take pro-Israel action?

No laws have been broken, but that doesn't mean it's okay.

Perhaps not, but the accusation on the table was that Israel engaged in lobbying which was either secret or illegal. It seems that accusation was false.

Do you find drag queen-story hour at the library upsetting? Or 12 year olds being put on puberty blockers against the wishes of one of their parents? Those things aren't specifically illegal, so by this logic you can't have a problem with it lol.

Please show me where I stated or implied that if it's not illegal, then it's okay. Please QUOTE me.

TIA.

How many posts have you made complaining about this?

One now! I dislike this. Fuck off, do your own dirty work if you want it done.

So I take you object to Jewish Americans and Christian Zionists lobbying the US government to take pro-Israel action?

Yes. Do your own dirty work if you want it done. As they used to say on 4chan, "not your personal army".

I am also opposed to a hypothetical extremely powerful and influential Thai-americans lobbying America to get involved in their border disputes with Cambodia. The American military isn't a tool for various other governments to settle scores, it's to keep the American people safe. My safety has not been improved here.

The accusation on the table

That wasn't me so take it up with him. I think my views are quite internally consistent.

Please QUOTE me.

I wasn't claiming any laws were broken, so take it up with the other guy. I was just responding to your question.

You ended your comment I originally responded to with " I strongly suspect that you don't actually have a principled objection to Israel's conduct."

I have now demonstrated my principled objection to Israeli conduct.

I have now demonstrated my principled objection to Israeli conduct.

Not really -- you did not object at all to similar Saudi conduct until it was brought to your attention and you were specifically asked about it.

Yes. Do your own dirty work if you want it done. As they used to say on 4chan, "not your personal army".

So I take it that you object to US membership in NATO as well? Also, how many posts have you made referring to [[Cuban-Americans]] in an ominous way?

That wasn't me so take it up with him.

It was you who decided to inject yourself into our exchange and pretend I took I position which I never took.

I wasn't claiming any laws were broken

No, here's what you said in response to me:

No laws have been broken, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Given you post here, there are good odds you lean right, thus, there are good odds you find many practices of your society amoral, which are not illegal.

Do you find drag queen-story hour at the library upsetting? Or 12 year olds being put on puberty blockers against the wishes of one of their parents? Those things aren't specifically illegal, so by this logic you can't have a problem with it lol.

You pretended that I took the position that "no laws broken" = "ok"

Thus, I am politely requesting that you either (1) show me where I took such a position by QUOTING me; or (2) admit that I took no such position and apologize.

Last time I will ask.

How do you think countries normally interact? A US Senator goes on a diplomatic trip and meets with members of the foreign government, who discuss how to talk to the US executive - and this is shocking to you? A foreign intelligence agency shares military intelligence with an allied government to convince them to act, and this is somehow beyond the pale? How dare Israel advocate for a course of action! Absolute monsters!

Sorry, but I find this to be a really thoughtless take. Like, you haven't put an ounce of critical thought into this WSJ article. I feel like you're motivated here either by your armchair objection to the military action itself, and are working backwards to justify why it was a bad idea, or by simple dislike of Israel - or perhaps both!

? A US Senator goes on a diplomatic trip and meets with members of the foreign government, who discuss how to talk to the US executive -

Is it normal to meet with foreign intelligence agencies and work with them in that?

A foreign intelligence agency shares military intelligence with an allied government to convince them to act, and this is somehow beyond the pale?

They didn't share it with the government in general, it is specifically Lindsey Graham being shown information that the US intelligence won't share with him. Or perhaps can't share with him, we're just assuming that Israeli intelligence isn't giving any fake information to Lindsey Graham to manipulate him towards Israeli interests after all. They're not loyal to the US, they're loyal to Israel and the idea that the spies are going to be honest to random gullible senators is a pretty bold one. Even "ally" spy agencies are still constantly at odds and trying to manipulate each other.

Is it normal to meet with foreign intelligence agencies and work with them in that?

Yes. That was my point. The only reason you think it's not normal is because you read a tweet to that effect.

How do you think countries normally interact? A US Senator goes on a diplomatic trip and meets with members of the foreign government, who discuss how to talk to the US executive - and this is shocking to you? A foreign intelligence agency shares military intelligence with an allied government to convince them to act, and this is somehow beyond the pale? How dare Israel advocate for a course of action! Absolute monsters!

Yeah, I'm getting a similar sense. Other countries lobby the United States all the time in various ways. In fact, it was widely reported that the de facto monarch of Saudi Arabia repeatedly called Trump to push for this Iran attack.

If people have a general objection to foreign countries lobbying the US for military intervention, fine, but it seems like that's not the real objection here.

If people have a general objection to foreign countries lobbying the US for military intervention, fine,

Me, I do

Me, I do

See my response to your other post.

I think the objection here is to the implications of the phrase "coaching him on how to lobby the president for action", insofar as lobbying implies at best trying to browbeat your target into action by being louder and more persistent than the other lobbyists, and at worst, disingenuous persuasion techniques bordering on deceit. In the strongest sense of the word, "lobbying" the POTUS is not only different from seeking "convince" him, but, arguably, the exact opposite.

Of course, this is making a lot out of a word choice that's not actually a direct quote as far as I can tell.

It is truly insane. And it still not enough to satisfy the Israelis. After the campaign against Ms Rachel, a bunch of zionist lawyers in UK are now suing Piers Morgan. As long as every single antizionist voice in the worlds is not silences they cant rest it seems.

As long as every single antizionist voice in the worlds is not silences they cant rest it seems.

Certainly one could similarly argue that as long as Israel exists, there is a subset of the population that will not rest, but instead work to undermine, defame, and ultimately destroy Israel if they can. So for example, those of us who are pro-Israel see a guy like David Duke, a white supremacist who couldn't care less about non-whites, suddenly seeming to care a great deal about Palestinian Arabs. Or we see a group called "queers for Palestine" which seems pretty much okay with the fact that in Hamas-ruled Gaza, homosexual activity was a serious offense.

Moreover, the demands made by these people, generally speaking, point to the destruction of Israel. For example, the Israel-haters want a "State of Palestine," but that State of Palestine would not absorb Palestinian Arab "refugees" from places like Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. (Even though Israel has absorbed all bona fide Jewish refugees from anywhere in the world.) Rather, they want Israel to absorb and offer citizenship to all of these persons, even though it would turn Israel into a majority-Arab state, inevitably resulting in a civil war, mass death and destruction, with a real chance of the Jews being slaughtered or chased out.

One thing that gives the game away was the moment, a few years back, when Israel reached a peace agreement with the UAE. Were progressive "peace activists" overjoyed? Of course not, because it was a step forward for Israel.

The upshot of all this is that anyone who is pro-Israel can see what's going going. There is a war being fought to destroy Israel. Not just on the traditional battlefield, but in courtrooms; in the court of public opinion; within school boards; and so on.

Under such circumstances, it's hardly unreasonable to fight back. Of course, any countermeasures, no matter how legitimate, will be spun as unjustified aggression by Zionists and used to further justify the war to destroy Israel. But at the end of the day, it's better to be feared than to be loved.

But at the end of the day, it's better to be feared than to be loved.

So long as you can avoid being hated, if I recall my Machiavelli. Of course, if you expect to be hated regardless, your options do then devolve to "be not feared, dead, and hopefully eulogised pleasantly and to no longer have your corpse be hated" or "be hated, feared, and have a chance at continuing to live", well, the calculus seems clear.

So long as you can avoid being hated, if I recall my Machiavelli.

I was curious, so I looked it up:

These reflections prompt the question: is it better to be loved rather than feared, or vice versa? The answer is that one would prefer to be both but, since they don’t go together easily, if you have to choose, it’s much safer to be feared than loved.

()()(*)

All the same, while a ruler can’t expect to inspire love when making himself feared, he must avoid arousing hatred.

Of course, if you expect to be hated regardless, your options do then devolve to "be not feared, dead, and hopefully eulogised pleasantly and to no longer have your corpse be hated" or "be hated, feared, and have a chance at continuing to live", well, the calculus seems clear.

Agreed.

Which translation of The Prince is this? I want to know so I can [fedpost] the translator.

Which translation of The Prince is this? I want to know so I can [fedpost] the translator.

I am pretty sure that the translator is Tim Parks. More out of curiosity than anything else, what is your objection to the translation?

Aesthetically, I can't stand it when translators use colloquial English to seem accessible , it reads like a dumbing-down. Specifically to Machiavelli, he is an extremely clear and precise prose stylist; his writing is a succession of syllogisms, whose clarity is heightened by a more formal and precise style. Compare George Bull, I don't know if it's the best but it's the one I happen to have to hand:

From this arises the following question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is that one would like to be both one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.

One reads like a tossed-off piece of advice in a conversation, one like a carefully considered thought.

Aesthetically, I can't stand it when translators use colloquial English to seem accessible ,

I understand. I tend to agree with you although it doesn't bother me too much either way.

Project Gutenberg has two different English translations, W. K. Marriott (no date given) and Luigi Ricci (1909). Both of them seem similar to the one that you give.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting.

Wikisource has what appears to be the original Italian (republished in 1814):

Nasce da questo una disputa: s’egli è meglio essere amato che temuto, o temuto che amato. Rispondesi, che si vorrebbe essere l’uno e l’altro; ma perchè egli è difficile, che e’ stiano insieme, è molto più sicuro l’esser temuto che amato, quando s’abbi a mancare dell’un de’ duoi.

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