site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   29036 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.

December 8th, 2024.

This is very recent and I don't remember hearing anything about this in the news. To be clear, in your view (1) after December 8, 2024, Syria took essentially no aggressive actions towards Israel; (2) Syria fully cooperated with any demands made by Israel and did not resist Israel in any way; and (3) nonetheless, Israel bombed Syria into oblivion.

Is that your position?

Edit: Looking back on your post, it seems you have defined "unconditional surrender" a bit differently than how I would understand it. It seems that in your view "unconditional surrender" doesn't foreclose the possibility of (1) continued attacks by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; (2) preparation for future military strikes by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; or (3) refusal to cooperate by the party who has unconditionally surrendered.

Is that correct?

Like any conqueror, rather than causing mucho damage they would greatly prefer to absorb their territory with minimal resistance, like Area C.

I'm a little confused by your response. Do you dispute that Israel has NOT attempted to absorb or annex any parts of Jordan, Egypt, or Area A?

This is very recent and I don't remember hearing anything about this in the news. To be clear, in your view (1) after December 8, 2024, Syria took essentially no aggressive actions towards Israel; (2) Syria fully cooperated with any demands made by Israel and did not resist Israel in any way; and (3) nonetheless, Israel bombed Syria into oblivion.

Is that your position?

Essentially, yes.

Edit: Looking back on your post, it seems you have defined "unconditional surrender" a bit differently than how I would understand it. It seems that in your view "unconditional surrender" doesn't foreclose the possibility of (1) continued attacks by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; (2) preparation for future military strikes by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; or (3) refusal to cooperate by the party who has unconditionally surrendered.

No, I would define "unconditional surrender" as a state in which the party surrendering allows the other party totally unconditional access and control of their country without any attempt at resistance or in this case, actively preventing anyone else in the country from attempting to resist.

I'm a little confused by your response. Do you dispute that Israel has NOT attempted to absorb or annex any parts of Jordan, Egypt, or Area A?

Israel did attempt to absorb the Sinai, they constructed several resorts during their occupation there and it was the preeminent position among the Israeli public including high level elites like Moshe Dayan. The only reason they didn't is because Egypt launched an attack that nearly wiped them out and forced them to resort to nuclear blackmail for American support. It was only after Egypt demonstrated the ability to put Israel's whole existence on the line that Israel was willing to make land concessions.

That's the consistent pattern with Israel, by the way: if you surrender without a fight they push as far as they can, like the West Bank, whereas if you give them a bloody nose they'll consider negotiations, as with Egypt. If Egypt had followed your advice after 1967 they never would have recovered the Sinai at all.

No, I would define "unconditional surrender" as a state in which the party surrendering allows the other party totally unconditional access and control of their country without any attempt at resistance or in this case, actively preventing anyone else in the country from attempting to resist.

Ok, I think I understand your position now. And I am extremely skeptical. Please show me your evidence that (1) on or about December 8, 2024, Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered" to Israel; and (2) shortly thereafter "Israel bombed Syria into oblivion"

Israel did attempt to absorb the Sinai,

I disagree, but in any event, it sounds like you are conceding that Israel has not attempted to annex or absorb Jordan or area A, correct?

The only reason they didn't is because Egypt launched an attack that nearly wiped them out and forced them to resort to nuclear blackmail for American support. It was only after Egypt demonstrated the ability to put Israel's whole existence on the line that Israel was willing to make land concessions.

I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. Please show me your evidence. TIA.

Ok, I think I understand your position now. And I am extremely skeptical. Please show me your evidence that (1) on or about December 8, 2024, Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered" to Israel;

Okay, plus this

and (2) shortly thereafter "Israel bombed Syria into oblivion"

Here you go

I disagree, but in any event, it sounds like you are conceding that Israel has not attempted to annex or absorb Jordan or area A, correct?

Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.

But the fact that they're currently "only" annexing Area C kind of proves my point: The PLO tried making peace with Israel and they were rewarded with annexation, whereas Hezbollah hit them in the nose and were given withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The weakest, most conciliatory neighbors are the ones Israel robs land from first.

I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. Please show me your evidence. TIA.

Perhaps you should engage in some preliminary research yourself on these topics before expressing arbitrary skepticism, since the only real dispute here is not whether the Israelis activated their nuclear forces but whether said activation was decisive in provoking American intervention on their side

Okay, plus this

I looked at those links and saw NOTHING supporting your claim. Would you mind QUOTING the relevant parts?

Here you go

All I see here is Israel bombing weapons sites which Israel perceived to be a threat. That's "bombing Syria into oblivion"?

Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.

Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?

Perhaps you should engage in some preliminary research yourself on these topics before expressing arbitrary skepticism, since the only real dispute here is not whether the Israelis activated their nuclear forces but whether said activation was decisive in provoking American intervention on their side

Sorry, but I'm not your research assistant. It's not my burden to go searching for evidence to support your claims.

Anyway, can you please quote the part of this article which you believe backs up what you are saying?

I'm afraid I'm not your professor.

Consider reading some books, even perhaps an article or two before engaging with a topic you clearly have zero knowledge of next time

I'm afraid I'm not your professor.

An interesting variation on the "It's not my job to educate you" line. Of course here, you could have simply used the "cut and paste" function to quote the relevant parts of the articles you linked to. Which you didn't. Because you couldn't. Because your sources don't support your claims.

Anyway, if you are unable to support your claims with actual evidence, I will draw my own conclusions.

And my conclusion is very simple: Your factual claims are false and therefore your conclusions do not stand up to scrutiny.

An interesting variation on the "It's not my job to educate you" line.

Actually, it was an interesting variation on "Sorry but I'm not your research assistant".

Of course here, you could have simply used the "cut and paste" function to quote the relevant parts of the articles you linked to. Which you didn't. Because you couldn't. Because your sources don't support your claims.

Of course, here you could have simply used basic reading skills to analyze the sources and, if I were making untrue claims, refute them using said sources.

But you aren't interested in making an actual argument, you're interested in wasting time.

My conclusion is simple: your factual claims are false and you are tedious.

Of course, here you could have simply used basic reading skills to analyze the sources and, if I were making untrue claims, refute them using said sources.

Actually, I was did. As mentioned above, I "looked at those links and saw NOTHING supporting your claim." Not much else can be done except to give you a chance to identify the passages which you believe support your position.

You are using what is sometimes called the "thick book strategy." i.e. you make a false claim and when asked for backup, you point at a lengthy article and insist that the backup is contained somewhere within. But refuse to say where.

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