site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17285 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.

In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.

I wish we could stop it with the "this is the middle east'. Just stop it.

The first great test of the Revisionist’s claim to understand the Arab came with the Western Wall controversy, of 1928-29. That Jews could use the area for prayer was established by long precedent, repeatedly affirmed by the Ottomans in the late 19th and early 20th century. Fanatic madman, Hajj Amin Al Husseini, was trying to use the wall as a wedge issue in his campaign to cement control over the Arab community, and, like the rightoid shithead he was, pursued a dual strategy of provoking and funding violence against Jewish worshippers, whilst also spreading rumours of Jewish intentions to take over the Temple Mount among the Arab public. The Zionist leadership was trying, with mixed success, to handle the issue through a mixture of appeals to the British administrators, and domestic and international hasbara campaigns.

That’s cucked and bugman, though, and so, tired of Jewsniping impotently from the sidelines for a year, the Revisionists decided it was time for them to step in. In order to demonstrate their enormous understanding of Arab psychology, they unveiled a truly brilliant and strategically adroit plan, so cunning in its methods and delicate in its design that it could not fail to win the day. They would - get this! - organize a gang of oafs to march to the wall and shout stuff. This would ‘assert Jewish pride’ and ‘demonstrate resolve’ and ‘show that Jews are not victims’ and other important goals of Retard Revisionist Zionism. That it happened to be precisely what Hajj Amin Al Husseini had been trying to engineer the whole time was but a minor detail. When you truly understand that Arab mind like a Right Wing Zionist does, you don’t even have to game out his plans.

Fast forward a few months, of course, and there were riots all over Palestine, and over 100 Jews were dead, many of them murdered in appallingly bestial fashion. To cap matters off, after imposing their Iron Wall on the Arab rioters, the British authorities decided it was time to review the policy of open Jewish immigration, with the Hope Simpson Enquiry paving the road to the White Paper, and ensuring the doors of the Holy Land were slammed shut just in time for the Holocaust. Great job, knobhead. But when YOU HAVE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY GREAT GRASP OF ARAB PSYCHOLOGY, you don’t have to say sorry. You just blow up a hotel or whatever.

...

The truth is that the Middle East is a mess because it is full of people whose thought process extends to ‘but this is the Middle East’ and then respond to real or perceived disrespect by chimping out, then cry when other people chimp back. Those Middle Eastern countries that have managed to turn lemons into a measure of lemonade don’t do it by inciting their dumbest and most violent people to start provoking everyone around them. They do it by taking out Pakistani generals on loan to kill them.

The excerpt is questionable. A pacifist approach in the decades that followed would have been far more disastrous for Zionism than the misadventure described. Arabs, particularly Levantines, are more feminine, more emotional, and more neurotic than the one dimensional ‘Arab mind’ narrative suggests, sure. That is only part of the story.

Well, you see...

When Kahane wasn’t condemning normie Zionists for having contempt for the Arabs, he liked to call them dogs. Not the most original metaphor, but vivid enough, so let’s run with it. Imagine a dog, not a Pitbull (that’s racist), but a Belgian Shepherd or similar. We observe one person who tries to reason with the dog, discusses with him the categorical imperative, and performs random unsolicited acts of kindness to appeal to its better nature. Another, swarthier person enters, perplexed at this cringe European, and pushes him to the side. He takes a good long look at the dog, walks over and kicks it square in the nuts, returning to high-five his friends. Rinse and repeat for three decades. Who is surprised that the dog is deranged?

What you do with a dog, obviously, is you train it. You don’t respond to its barks and snarls by getting down on all fours and barking back because ‘this is the yard’ and that’s what is done here. How do you train the dog? Well, go find someone who’s good at it, and ask him.

You don't have to be a pacifist just because you're not doing pointless chimpouts, is what he's trying to say.

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