site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4892 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Would it? If he could assure cheaper oil and an economic boom many voters would be pleased, even if Israel lobbied against him. It's not as if Trump is running for a third term.

I've been critical of Israeli policy before, but that kind of disagreement hides a fundamental similarity: Israel is us. They live like us, they act like us, they mostly look like us.

The image of Jewish people being purged from their homes as a result of US foreign policy mismanagement would be incredibly destructive.

Presumably it would be just another partisan issue? The left (and most of the media) would support it, the right would be against it, and swing voters would see it as just another ethnic conflict?

I don't think Israel has hurt their image to that extent. They've hurt it significantly, but not that badly.

The image of Jews who look sound and act like Europeans or Americans being pushed out of their homes would not be politically survivable.

As soon as Trump turns on Israel the Democrats will have the Jews back in their good graces.

As soon as Trump turns on Israel the Democrats will have the Jews back in their good graces.

Not gonna happen. Even if the party elite wanted to make them welcome again, Jew hatred has become too entrenched among their base (and is non-negotiable for their Muslim voters).

Maybe you're correct and Israel has successfully pissed away generations of Jewish-American efforts to combat antisemitism in four years. But I doubt it's been that bad.

The pro-Palestinian wing of the democrats has been steadily gaining influence, Israel will not find it easy to regain support there I think.

In democrat leaning media Israel is already vilified as a Jewish racial apartheid state. There doesn't seem to be any pushback narrative either, which may be a fatal mistake for Israel in hindsight.

Do you read the New York Times? The push back against Israel is milquetoast at best, and would shift quickly if Israel were actually threatened.

The voting base sentiment of democrats is being shaped to think of Israel as South Africa, except funded by the US. The white South Africans are being soft-expelled by the country, and the US would probably turn a blind eye to Israelis being forced to leave in a similar fashion.

Sure, if the Jewish population of Israel drops ~10% over the course of 35 years, then there will be no political problem for anyone in the USA. But if we saw mass casualty events in Tel Aviv, or entire cities in Northern Israel abandoned in mere weeks, then it wouldn't be survivable for any president.

Probably true. But I don't think any mass casualty events of whites, jews, christians, or treaty allies are survivable for any US president. Which is why I doubt it will take that form if Israel badly loses a war, the presumably muslim victor can use soft explusion tactics to remove them slowly with no diplomatic consequences. It would be framed as decolonization by news outlets.

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