site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9753 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

Note also how for the anti-Semite, each and every Jew is responsible for whatever is said by every other Jew.

A general statement about a group does not imply even it's dissenting members are held accountable for the majority opinion.

A general statement about a group does not imply even it's dissenting members are held accountable for the majority opinion.

Agreed. However if the dissenting members (or some other subgroup) are accused of hypocrisy based on the stated views of some other subgroup, that's the sort of group responsibility I am talking about.

In this case, the Jew hater identified (1) "Jewish thinkers" who are allegedly responsible for pushing various norms of conduct on the world; and (2) "Zionists" who allegedly carve out an exception to violate these norms.

Of course there are a number of problems with this claim.

For starters, Israel actually is NOT violating any modern norms of war. For example, it's perfectly legitimate to blow up a hospital which is being used as a terrorist base of operations.

Second, modern norms of war are not the result of Jewish thinkers any more than any other aspect of modern thought. To be sure, since the 19th century, Jewish people have a tendency to contribute more to any kind of modern thought. But for the Jew-hater, the Jewish contribution depends on whether the end result is, in his view, positive or negative. If it's something he thinks is negative, and only then, then Jewish over-representation means Jews are responsible. (Will the Jew-hater give Jews credit for modern physics in the same way? Doubtful.)

Third, even if there were a contradiction between these "Jewish thinkers" and "Zionists," it's only hypocrisy if either (1) there is significant overlap between these groups; or (2) Jews are collectively responsible for the positions of all other Jews.

Anyway, that's about as much I can do with Gish Gallop which has been presented by @Bingbong

Agreed. However if the dissenting members (or some other subgroup) are accused of hypocrisy based on the stated views of some other subgroup, that's the sort of group responsibility I am talking about.

But has he done that here? I thought the accusation was that he isn't being specific, which would preclude from attributing views to people who dissent from them.

In this case, the Jew hater identified (1) "Jewish thinkers" who are allegedly responsible for pushing various norms of conduct on the world; and (2) "Zionists" who allegedly carve out an exception to violate these norms.

Sorry, the last comment I saw was about "Ethnostate for me, infinity zogs for thee". It's a reductive and snarky way to phrase it, but I think this view is actually shared by a majority of Jewish people.

But has he done that here?

Here's what he said up-thread:

Part of the ridiculousness here is that Israelis act in ways that any sensible Western regime should be acting, but get absolutely pilloried for it due to norms of conduct that Jewish thinkers have done their best to encourage off the back of the Holocaust and their outsized influence. If the average Zionist didn't have a sole carveout in their politics for Israel to act belligerently I'd be a lot more supportive of their views.

the last comment I saw was about "Ethnostate for me, infinity zogs for thee". It's a reductive and snarky way to phrase it, but I think this view is actually shared by a majority of Jewish people.

Well can you spell out the view (which you believe is shared by a majority of Jewish people) in a way that's more comprehensive and less snarky?

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