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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We are now in the timeline where the journalistic integrity of the New York Times rests upon whether or not it is physically possible to train a dog to anally rape a human.
The New York Times ran an opinion article by Nicholas Kristof wherein a number of Palestinians report being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted in Israeli prisons. There’s not much in the way of physical evidence, but that is hardly unusual in rape crimes. Israel has strenuously denied the allegations, characterizing them as blood libel. It seems to be a he-said/she-said that comes down to whether you believe the Palestinian prisoners (who often have ties to Hamas or other extremist groups, hence why they ended up in Israeli prisons) or the IDF.
Certain enterprising young pro-Israel influencers think they can to better than appeal to untrustworthiness. They puport to have found a smoking gun that proves the NYT published a complete fabrication in order to libel the State of Israel, and by extension all Jews. One of the more salacious anecdotes regards a man from Gaza who alleges that he was raped by a dog.
If, in fact, such a thing were impossible, then it would prove without doubt that the paper of record recklessly printed unverified falsehoods. We are now in the “doctors arguing with the author about the medical literature” stage of the discourse. See, even though we have documented evidence that dogs can cause rectal injury to humans, in none of those reports was the initial contact involuntary on the part of the human.
I am not well acquainted with dogs, but my understanding is that it is not particularly hard to get them to hump things. I guess the people making this argument are hoping that others won’t want to think too hard about the mechanics of dog rape.
Despite calls and rumors to the contrary, The Times so far has declined to retract the article.
In historical analysis, there’s a useful concept called the criterion of embarrassment. If a claim is highly embarrassing to the claimant, then it’s more likely to be true, as normally people are unwilling to lie when they stand to gain only shame, humiliation, and loss of status. For instance, while every holocaust writer talks about the Jews who acted as informers and helpers to the camp guards, no author ever claims that they themselves informed or collaborated, because to be an informant (or moser) against another Jew is the most shameful sin in Judaism. Hence, such a narrative does not exist, as the author would be delivering himself only social approbation. “Raped by a dog” is like this. It is a claim that is maximally shameful to a Palestinian claimant given their unique cultural values. It’s a claim that would arguably harm the Hamas cause by decreasing morale and the enrollment of new recruits. And it’s an unnecessary claim, given that the IDF’s top lawyer already resigned in order to publish a video of the Israeli soldiers raping a prisoner.
Lying about this would not serve an essential function, and according to the criterion of embarrassment, I think it’s likely these prisoners are telling the truth about what they think happened. (Phrasing it this way because they may have been made to think the rape involved a dog, as part of a psychological terror campaign).
That is not the case here and you are misapplying a very niche concept and trying to sell it as some sort of bayesian reasoning tool.
The Criterion of Embarrassment is mostly used for Biblical apologetics to justify believing in the Crucifixion. It has very limited usefulness elsewhere; it's not some kind of general rule that historians use to evaluate the plausibility of historical narratives.
"This is more likely to be true because it makes the narrator look bad" has a certain amount of general truthiness to it, but it still needs to be balanced against other factors, like plausibility and how the teller stands to gain from it even if it does cast them in a negative light.
There is a very obvious benefit to Hamas lying about Israelis raping Palestinian prisoners with dogs. It is extremely unlikely to decrease morale or enrollment of new recruits--what, they're not afraid of being imprisoned or bombed or run over by tanks, but the rape-dogs will terrify them? Come now. Atrocity propaganda almost always serves to increase morale and recruitment by representing the enemy as unspeakable monsters. Lying about it also serves the very valuable function of generating more propaganda to be repeated by people who hate Jews.
For this to be the case, there would need to be a lot of cases in history where someone lied about something which would lead to overwhelming personal and familial shame. Do you think that’s true?
That’s exactly how it is. “What, as a teenager you fantasized about dying a heroic death to save your family or nation, but not being sodomized by a dog?” You can easily socially reinforce males to die in war through patriotism. That comes out of instinct. You cannot make them eager to be sodomized by dogs. There is nothing in Palestinian culture which would allow such a thing. (Imagine you’re the USM commander of the battalion ready to begin the Battle of Fallujah. More than 100 Americans are expected to die. You’re preparing your troops. But wait! Due to unforeseen circumstances, we can actually win the battle if just one soldier is sodomized by a dog and talks about it publicly. Who is the heroic soldier willing to save 100 lives by being raped by a dog? I think every few would raise their hand, maybe your intuition says differently. But now imagine they were all Muslim fundamentalists from a culture where women will not find husbands if their brother was raped and who find dogs ritually contaminated. And this explains the Israeli motive, given that destroying all of their dwellings and starving their children did not significantly curtail their morale. It makes sense why Israel would use dogs for rape because nothing else has reduced Palestinian morale.)
How much more important is the “dog” element compared to the previous, evidenced cases of rape in Israeli prisons? Does the “dog” element move the needle?
This is 100% true, but you will not find a case of atrocity propaganda in history where a man writes publicly “yes, it was I who was raped by the German Hun when they took Belgium! It was my backside which suffered!”
You are intentionally avoiding the point. It's clearly true that people are more likely to lie in ways that benefit them and less likely to lie in ways that do not benefit them, but even for Crucifixion, the "Criterion of Embarrassment" is based on a lot of assumptions and convenient omissions. It's a rhetorical tactic, not a historical reasoning tool. Would someone admitting to being raped by dogs experience shame? No doubt, but you are quite capable of reasoning for yourself why they'd lie about it. I also note that I am unable to find any actual named witnesses, just anonymous ones. It's a lot easier to claim multiple accounts by a bunch of names we can't actually put a name or face to.)
Really? Do you have some deep insight into the Palestinian mindset? Do you have any evidence that fear of being raped by Israeli dogs is actually impacting their morale? As someone who's been studying Palestinians longer and more deeply than you have (you only care about them because of who they are fighting, not because you have an actual interest or understanding of their culture, history, and language), I am very, very doubtful that these atrocity stories would do anything but inflame them more.
Your hypothetical "What if you could save your comrades by being raped by a dog?" is ridiculous and, of course, dishonest. No one asked a Palestinian to get raped by a dog for Hamas.
If you really want to pose analogies, the equivalent would not be "Volunteer to be raped by a dog" but "Volunteer to claim you were raped by a dog," or if you believe the dog-rape really happened, "Volunteer to fight an evil enemy who might rape you with dogs if you are captured."
It explains their motive if you think "reducing their morale" is an Israeli objective, if you think rape-dogs would actually do this, and if you think they have failed to achieve their objective. You are, as usual, just imagining an fantastical "Evil Israelis who do Evil Things because Evil (Jews)." Sitting in their Headquarters of Evil, they say to themselves, "Well, we've reduced Gaza to rubble but those brave Palestinians still haven't surrendered" (what would this even look like, at this point?). "Let's start raping them with dogs- surely this will break their spirit!" (And... what? They will stop fighting? Stop resisting? Throw out Hamas? What is the endgame you imagine the Israelis imagining in this scenario?)
It's pure made-up atrocity porn. Even if rape-by-dog has ever happened in an Israeli prison, it's like claiming Abu Ghraib was part of a systematic plan by US forces to demoralize Iraqis and make them stop resisting. Maybe you believe this was the case, but then you have to believe that from the top on down, the entire US chain of command was not just sadistically evil but extraordinarily stupid.
For the Palestinians? Not much. For Westerners? Certainly adds more outrage. Everyone kind of understands/accepts that prisoner rape will happen, whether or not you think it's pervasive and institutionally approved. But rape by dogs? Only evil Jews would do something like that!
Where is the Palestinian who has done this? From what I can tell, the accounts are all anonymous.
I note this is similar to the situation regarding the gang rapes that supposedly happened on October 7. There are numerous accounts of it happening, claims of footage existing, but because you can't find an individual, named Israeli woman who will go on camera and describe what was done to her, people who hate Jews will claim it's atrocity porn, while simultaneously finding anonymized Palestinian accounts of rape by dogs credible.
If the the criterion has predictive value then it’s a good reasoning tool. You appear to not want to provide an argument as to why it’s not predictive. There has been atrocity propaganda since time immemorial, yet never have men admitted to being put in such a humiliating position for that purpose. We actually find a trend of humiliating stories being hushed aside so that the nation and soldiers don’t lose morale. Why would the trend be bucked and broken today, just now, in 2026? Why should this be the first case in history of atrocity propaganda where the alleged victims — from a fierce honor culture nonetheless — stand to gain only immense social humiliation, losing all morale?
Because men all over the world fantasize about dying for their country. Men do not fantasize about being raped for their country. A Hamas militant who dies gains honor for their family. A Hamas militant raped gains dishonor for their family. Unless you think that Palestinians are the only people in the world who bypass basic human motivational thinking, they will be averse to signing up for Hamas if the outcome is rape as opposed to torture. Notice how in action movies, the protagonist may be tortured, but is usually not raped. Do you need a source on the stigma of rape in Palestine?
How would you have felt today if you didn’t have breakfast? The Fallujah Dog Rape Hypothetical informs us how humiliating rape is for men, that it is maximally aversive, and thus necessarily reduces morale and recruitment, especially so in an honor culture. The known outcomes of an activity influence the willingness of people to engage in an activity.
Well no, the story is now publicized widely, so Palestinian would-be militants will learn about the story. Hamas telling them they won’t be raped by a dog will not be very convincing, and as they are not yet recruited, they have no reason to believe Hamas once that story has sunk in.
Yes? Of course that’s their objective. How could you think that’s not their objective?
I thought this was common knowledge. Hamas is still out there, and they haven’t been able to exile the native Gazans.
Is it your opinion that Israelis have not previously committed evil acts?
If they already raped Palestinian prisoners, and the chief lawyer of the IDF had to leak the video to try to bring the soldiers to justice, and then they dropped the charges, then I’m not sure why you’d think it is beyond the Israelis to rape prisoners with dogs. Because the last thing is already 80% evil, and adding a dog is only 20% more evil. Unless you think that this didn’t happen, or would prefer not to think it would happen. Do you think they killed aid workers and hid their corpses? Do you think they destroyed statues of Jesus with a sledgehammer in Lebanon? Did you know there’s a holiday where some Israelis throw puppies on a bonfire?
But I pretty much believe this, except for the demoralization part. Abu Ghraib was extremely evil. People were tortured with dogs and there are accounts of rape by guards. This is actually a good argument toward my view I hadn’t even realized: unfathomably evil torture facilities have existed in recent memory.
I have already pointed out that your "criterion" is merely a restatement of the obvious principle that people are less likely to lie in a way that makes them look bad. I have also pointed out why a "predictive tool" is at best a piece of evidence, a p-value, and that there are other factors to consider, e.g., when judging the likelihood of Hamas lying about dog-rape. I have provided arguments, you are just engaging in your usual performance of hyper-focusing on a few words and ignoring all the other words.
So you have no evidence. You have no evidence that it is happening, only what you assume must be true (but you don't actually, you are just constructing arguments as soldiers, so let's say, what you are presenting as a self-evident truth) based on axioms you also assume.
They aren't Klingons. They aren't going to "lose all morale" from the world believing Israelis raped some of their men with dogs.
You will not like getting into an IQ dick-measuring contest with me. Don't do this.
Are you aware that that there are numbers between 0 and 1? And other numbers besides? Don't ask straw man questions either.
Why do you think it is beyond the Palestinians to lie?
I don't think it is beyond the Israelis to rape prisoners with dogs. I have not said it is impossible that this ever has or is happening. I am very skeptical given the evidence so far, I note the obvious motivated reasoning apparent in who immediately seizes on the story as true despite a level of evidence they would not accept in less ideologically compatible cases, and I question the pervasiveness and the simple logistics necessary for it to be something that is happening as is being reported now. Right now, the evidence of Israeli rape-dogs is considerably less than the evidence for, say, the Holocaust, or Hamas rapes on October 7. Curiously, you are utterly convinced of the first while extremely skeptical of the latter two. Why ever could that be?
This I actually believe, because I do think you have a distorted model of the world.
Unfathomably evil torture facilities have always existed. Most people know atrocities happen, in peacetime and in war. Some people believe only Those People do those kinds of things.
If I have evidence that humans behave a certain way, then I have evidence that Palestinians will behave a certain way. You were just unwilling to consider the Fallujah Dog Rape Thought Experiment. I know saying “it’s common sense” won’t do anything here, but this is common sense that most guys who would die for their country, or even be torture, would be averse to serving their country if it brought the possibility of being raped by an animal. Because this reduces their honor when the whole reason to fight for your country is honor. Islamic martyr honor culture does not extend to being raped by a dog. This is all quite clear to me. But instead of your explaining your own intuitions, you ask for the impossible, as if I could present a written affidavit from LinkedIn Hamas CEO with a nice bar graph of their quarterly recruitment figures. The absence of evidence here just means that we use what evidence we do have to infer probabilities. Maybe you can ask your favorite AI to gauge the likelihood that an Islamic militant group would face reduced recruitment after a viral story that their militants are getting raped by a ritually unclean animal. I would think it would agree.
I did consider it. I answered it. I pointed out why your thought experiment was not applicable because you were falsely equating one thing with a different thing. You of course did not refute this, just ignored it and now pretend it wasn't answered.
The problem with your farcical debate tactics is that "thought experiments" is all you have. Not facts. Not logic. Not historical understanding. Not nuance. Just thought experiments, rhetorical devices, and arguments as soldiers.
I note you have not responded to a single other point anyone makes when rebutting you, as usual. Do you actually know anything about Palestinians and Muslim culture besides what you have gleaned from the Internet about dogs and "honor culture"? No, you do not. Do you have an explanation for why these dog rapes are being publicized, if they are so devastating to morale and recruitment? No. Do you have evidence that Hamas recruitment is down and would-be fedayeen are now staying home for fear of Israeli rape dogs? No. Are you able to explain why you find Israeli rape dogs credible, but the Holocaust and Hamas rapes are not credible? You cannot, because the answer would give the game away.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. It adds a blasphemy angle. It moves the needle for the exact reasons you mentioned earlier in the post. Dogs are contaminated. It's a much more horrifying and enraging provocation. Consider the comparative propaganda value of:
The enemy sometimes rapes our people!
The enemy consorts with demons and has institutional programs to feed the demons rape victims!
If they are attempting to persuade a Western audience, why would it matter that the dog is contaminated? We don’t have the social norm. And if this is the most horrifying event they can imagine, why would they want every young Palestinian learning that this could be their fate?
This only helps Hamas in a two-dimensional reading. Hamas is not in need of fabulous tales of torture when there are already real tales of torture. Yet Israel stands to gain an aversive threat that could actually make young Palestinians wary of signing up for Hamas. Americans are concerned about children starved and bombed, aid workers killed, land taken in Lebanon. Arabs might care about the dog part, but this was published in the NYTimes for a Progressive readership which already learned that Israel dropped the charges on that rapist a few months ago. It is not clear that this story is in Hamas’ favor, it requires a dozen men to destroy their family reputation forever, and it is actually more useful for Israel to have this story out than Hamas. If you’re Israel, you realize that you you can’t get to Hamas in any past attempt, so why not use psychological horror?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link