site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17200 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Secondly, it's extremely impractical, if not impossible to remove 6 million Jews from land they've now lived on for (at least) three generations.

Is it? The Israelis didn't seem to have much problem expelling the Palestinians from land they had inhabited for much longer.

The Palestinians left on the promise the Arabs would kill all the Jews and then they'd go back. Didn't work out so well. I don't see Israeli Jews falling for that.

This is one of those claims that not only conflicts with the facts on the ground but doesn't even really make sense on its face. Why would they need to leave for the "Arabs" (are Palestinians and Arabs different population now?) to kill the Jews? Wouldn't they stick around, participate in the genocide and partake of the loot?

Because no-one wants to get stuck in the middle of a war zone. Same reason there were refugee columns out of Belgium and northern France during the early days of WWI.

(are Palestinians and Arabs different population now?)

Non-Israeli Palestinians seem to be a generally hated (by other Arabs as well as by Israeli Jews) subpopulation of Arabs.

You can describe any war refugee exodus like this. Most of Mariupol's population evacuated due to the war. Zelenskyy keeps talking about retaking Ukrainia territory. Does this mean that the refugees left on the promise that the Ukrainian army would kill all the Russians and then they'd go back?

More likely the refugees left on the grounds that whether the Ukranians ever recovered Mariupol or not, they'd be better off in Ukranian-controlled territory than Russian.

Arguably true for Palestinian refugees as well. There was no way to tell ahead of time that the Arabs remaining in territory conquered in 1948 would (eventually) be granted full citizenship in the State of Israel, but that Arabs remaining in territory conquered in 1967 would live the rest of their lives under military occupation or blockaded rump states.

That is not why they left.

A couple factors that make it much more difficult

  1. Israelis have the bomb.
  2. 6 million is a lot more than 750k, especially when almost every single person has significant military experience.
  3. Who's gonna do it? The Arabs? They've never won a war against the state of Israel. The West? Good luck dealing with the optics of destroying the only functional government in the Middle East to appease some Blue-haired leftists and Neo-nazis.

Israelis have the bomb.

6 million is a lot more than 750k, especially when almost every single person has significant military experience.

So did South Africa.

Who's gonna do it?

The US after the 2028 or 2032 election at the hands of an AOC, Mamdani, or Fuentes-like figure.

Imagine that instead of American carriers providing protection to Israel they instead imposed a Gaza-style blockade. Imagine that instead of paying Israel's neighbors to play nice they were instead paid to keep their borders closed. Imagine if the cargo planes full of munitions went to Israel's enemies instead. Imagine if, instead of providing veto protection from the UN, the US were a hostile force, imposing international sanctions and embargoes. Now imagine that an exception is made for outbound flights from Ben Gurion airport, so that Israeli Jews always have a golden bridge to escape across.

How long do you imagine Israel would last under such conditions? My guess is about a month.

Getting the Jews to leave would be difficult. But the logistics of leaving would be trivial. But might makes right. They wanted their historical homeland. And to be honest most of the elites in the ME now like the Jews and find them as useful allies.

For Jewish wealth and ability to expand as a tribe there are likely better places for them to be. They could probably find better land in S America. Argentina doesn’t seem overpopulated. And legally their is an interesting provision in the Argentina constitution that would basically guarantee the right of Israel en masse to immigrate: Article 25 “The Federal Government shall encourage [or foster] European immigration; and it may not restrict, limit, or burden with any tax whatsoever the entry into Argentine territory of foreigners whose purpose is tilling the soil, improving industries, and introducing and teaching the sciences and the arts.”

European and good at science you say?

It would be much easier to find a place in Argentina to grow Israel to 50m people than in Israel.

European and good at science you say?

Among Israeli Jews, 45% are Mizrahi who are about as European as the Arabs are. I'd hazard a guess that if I conducted a survey in which I showed respondents a photo of a Mizrahi Jew and a Palestinian Arab without telling them which was which, people would perform no better than chance. 3% of Israeli Jews are Ethiopian. Less than half are Ashkenazi or Russian.

The idea that the Israel-Palestine conflict reduces to anything as simple as "white settler-colonialists oppressing brown people" is a ludicrous fantasy.

Correct. Sometimes we forgot that not all Jews are Ashkenazi. In America and in global affairs it’s always an Ashkenazi.

European and good at science you say?

"Israelis are European" is more a slur by leftists than it is truth.

I though all DNA test on specifically Ashkenazi have shown 50% European DNA and they lived in Europe or Russia for the past 1000 years.

Calling them European would seem to be significantly factually correct. We aren’t going back to the old days where truth telling is a slur or racists.

But Ashkenazim are not a majority, or indeed plurality, of Israeli Jews.

Most recently study I see - Israel was 44% Ashkenazi and 8% mixed. So about half and shrinking. They were the founders and basically until today the only ones that matter in the country.

The Nakba is estimated to have expelled 750k Palestinians from their land i.e. 7.4% of the current total population of Israel. From a purely pragmatic, logistics perspective, expelling 10 million people is going to be a lot harder than expelling 750k people.

Also, rather importantly, the Nakba was (for the most part, albeit this is controversial) Palestinians fleeing their homes willingly because of the war, and then later being refused right of return after Israel's victory.

It is a lot messier to force people out of their homes when they do not wish to leave of their own volition.

If America wished it would be absolutely trivial to make Israel a country in which nobody would ever want to live.

Is it? The Israelis didn't seem to have much problem expelling the Palestinians from land they had inhabited for much longer.

There is a myth that Palestinian Arabs are some kind of ancient people who was in the area for a long time. In reality, the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of people who immigrated to modern day Israel from other parts of the Ottoman Empire. In large part due to economic activity spurred by early Zionists. That's why so many Palestinian Arabs have names like "Al-Masri" which means "Egyptian"

As far as expulsions go, those were limited to a few key areas. Which is why to this day Israel has a substantial Arab minority.

In any event, I think that by "impractical," what was meant that (1) the Jews in Israel will never voluntarily agree to it; and (2) they are sufficiently strong militarily that as a practical matter nobody can make them do it.

Palestinians have 2x the proportion of ancient Levantine DNA as Ashkenazi (European) Jews, who make up most of the Israeli population

Ashkenazi (European) Jews, who make up most of the Israeli population

Untrue. Ashkenazi Jews only make up 32% of Israeli Jews, or 23% of Israel's population. The single biggest Jewish demographic in Israel are the Mizrahi Jews, representing 45% of Israeli Jews or 33% of the population of the country.

Okay but isn't the categorization used here... pretty odd? It differentiates Ashkenazim from "Soviet Jews", who presumably are either Ashkenazi or even more European, and it doesn't appear to differentiate Sephardim from Mizrahim, even though Sephardim (afaik?) are also quite European in ancestry. Also, some of those in the "Mixed" category would presumably be, like, Ashkenazim/"Soviet" mixed, if these are really the categories used.

It's more of a chronological categorisation than an ethnic one. Ashkenazim who emigrated to Israel around 1948 would presumably have a lot of ancestry in common with Russian Jews, but the Russian Jews are mostly those who emigrated from the USSR in a large influx around 1989. Because of this, they're a distinct cohort in terms of culture, language and history, if not ethnicity.

It is surprising that they don't mention Sephardim etc. anywhere in the article. Maybe there really aren't that many of them?

The majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi, not Ashkenazi.

I believe there is a theory that Palestinians are the Jews who were bad at reading. Judaism requires a large amount of reading sacred text so the ones who were bad at reading left the tribe. NYC folks and West Virginia folks dislike each other so the conflict makes sense.

But New Yorkers and the red tribe elite also dislike each other- indeed far more than thé red tribe elite and hillbillies.

Palestinian Christians in particular (a genetically-distinct subpopulation of Palestinians) are the closest DNA match to ~2nd century Galilean DNA according to Global25 Coordinates.

Only a tiny minority of Palestinians are Christians. Its why its so disingenuous when rightists show the far below 1% tiny minority of Gazan Christians as somehow central figures and victims in that conflict. The truth is that Arab Christians have been fleeing the Levant for the West since the 1800s, long, long, long before Israel’s founding, and largely fleeing persecution by people of the same faith as 99% of modern day Palestinians.

Describing Palestinian Christians as central victims of Israel is like saying the primary victims of Israel and America’s bombing of current day Iran are Iranian Jews.

My understanding is that Palestinian Christians are so rare as to be irrelevant, save occasionally when used as a propaganda tool, and are generally even worse off than Muslim Palestinians.

By contrast, Arab Christian Israelis are, I believe, the most successful non-Jewish group in Israel? It's not a paradise for them either, but they are doing pretty well by regional standards.

Only being 2x a bunch of random European Ashkenazis seems less than expected

The proportions are quite high (80% vs. 40%)

I gotta ask, do you honestly expect this to be even slightly convincing to anyone who isn't already on board? You sound like every denier who has ever had to justify something unjustifiable.

And, if you wanna go for right makes right morality, then surely you'll be perfectly fine if one day the shoe is on the other foot and the Palestinians achieve military supremacy?

then surely you'll be perfectly fine if one day the shoe is on the other foot and the Palestinians achieve military supremacy?

If the Palestinians have the whip hand they will rape, torture, dispossess and genocide the Jews regardless of anything Israel has or hasn’t done at any point since its founding. They did this before Israel, they will do it after it.

if one day the shoe is on the other foot and the Palestinians achieve military supremacy?

I'll believe it when I see it.

the Palestinians achieve military supremacy?

They'd have to have more schools than weapons depots, and maybe not rip out water mains installed by bleeding hearts to convert into weapons.

Flying pigs will convert to Judaism first.

I gotta ask, do you honestly expect this to be even slightly convincing to anyone who isn't already on board?

Yes. But I think what you are asking is whether I expect to convince anyone who is an Israel-hater. The answer to that is "no."

then surely you'll be perfectly fine if one day the shoe is on the other foot and the Palestinians achieve military supremacy?

Apparently you are not aware that the Arabs (this was before "Palestinians" were invented) expelled the Jews from Gaza City, Hebron, and many other places. And, as a supporter of Israel, I would have been okay with letting it go if they had stopped there instead of trying to wipe out all of Israel.

But in any event, to answer your question, if (1) the Palestinian Arabs achieved military supremacy; and (2) there was a Jewish minority in or near "Palestine" that constantly engaged in aggression and terrorism with the idea of wiping out all the Palestinian Arabs; then (3) those Arabs would be justified in expelling that portion of the Jewish minority that was causing problems, justified in occupying Jewish territory for defensive purposes, etc.

Well, I'm glad you admitted to being in favor of ethnic cleansing at least.

"Ethnic cleansing" plus 50 years is just a normal border.

Well, I'm glad you admitted to being in favor of ethnic cleansing at least.

I think it would be more fair to say that I'm not categorically opposed to ethnic cleansing. As another poster pointed out, there are scenarios where it is the least bad option.

Perhaps more importantly, if there was an ethnic cleansing at some point in the past, I don't necessarily believe that there is a categorical imperative to undo it.

Are there no circumstances where something like ethnic cleansing is not the least bad option? I think I'm in favor of ethnic cleansing the same way I am in favor of abortion.

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