site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23081 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

Zohran Mamdani is threatening to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the UN in September

18 USC 878 makes it a federal crime to threaten to imprison any foreign head of state, which suggests that the DOJ has grounds to take action against Mamdani here. This would, of course, cause absolutely nuclear levels of insanity to erupt, especially since I have very little faith in the media not to frame it as "Fascist Trump arrests political rival". But also, it's also extremely unlikely that there will be an actual attempt to arrest Netanyahu, since that would require the NYPD to tangle with the United States Secret Service. All of this seems obvious to me, which means it must be obvious to Mamdani, which raises the question, what is his play here? Even the suggestion that the city that hosts the UN would seriously consider arresting guests of the UN should be insanely problematic.

My reading of 18 USC 878 in connection with 18 USC 1201 is that it refers to illegal kidnappings only. The key operative word in 1201 is "unlawful".

Arrests by police are almost never so blatantly unlawful that we prosecute the police for kidnapping.

More generally, threatening to have someone arrested is not considered threatening a crime.

Even the suggestion that the city that hosts the UN would seriously consider arresting guests of the UN should be insanely problematic.

I think that the arrest of foreign officials wanted by entities outside the US is obviously a federal matter, and absent specific legislation from Congress entirely up to the executive. Obviously there are tradeoffs between diplomatic standards and enforcing international norms.

But if Trump did an 180 tomorrow and told Netanyahu that he is not welcome in the US and would be shipped to the Hague in he appeared on US soil, that would be entirely within his power.

And putting aside conflicting statutes, on what basis would it be a lawful arrest? Mamdani cites ICC. The ICC is not controlling in the U.S.; in fact the opposite (we have a provision to invade The Hague). So that dog doesn’t hunt. What is the NYC law he could enforce that isnt preempted by federal law?

And if there isn’t one, then what credible argument could Mamdani make re the arrest?

in fact the opposite (we have a provision to invade The Hague)

It's actually worse than that, since

(1) The so-called Hague invasion act prohibits all governments in the US from cooperating with the ICC;

(2) the UN Treaty (which has force of federal law) gives immunity to foreign diplomats traveling to the US on UN business;

(3) Absent the UN treaty, Netanyahu would presumably be entering the US with general diplomatic immunity; and

(4) AFAIK The Rome Statute itself recognizes (2) and (3).

So yeah, there's no legal basis whatsoever. That being said, smoke-blowing is a long tradition among politicians. And Mamdani is just playing to his base who don't know (or don't care about) the law and are driven by what could be politely referred to as "strong anti-Israel sentiment."

And if there isn’t one, then what credible argument could Mamdani make re the arrest?

None whatsoever. As far as I know, Netanyahu could come to NYC and personally spit in Mamdani's face with full diplomatic immunity. In fact, I hope Netanyahu decides to rub it in a bit; sign up for a tour of Gracie Mansion; and plant an Israeli flag in the entry way.

18 USC 878 also references 18 USC 112, which prohibits imprisoning any foreign official.

But what about reading it in connection with 18 USC 112, which doesn't mention kidnappings and does mention "imprison" without any specification that it's not under color of law?

This is what @StableOutshoot also said.

I agree that "imprison" sounds like it refers to police conduct. Of course, if this was the case, then any policeman who arrests a foreign official (say, because he just shot up a school) is criminally liable under this title, which is likely not what the legislature intended.

--

As an aside, it might just be cultural bias, but I find the way laws are written in the US rather opaque, like there is no expectation that citizens should even try to understand what the law is (at least pre-LLM). 18 USC 878 seems a prime example. First off, it is very niche, criminalizing threats of a list of offenses (which themselves are special cases of more general offenses against members of the public instead of foreign officials) -- which I presume is in turn a special case of a more general statue, because it seems unlikely that the US is fine with people threatening other federal crimes.

Then there is the fact that 18 USC 112(1) reads like the result of a brainstorming session without any attempt at deduplication. One would think that the verb "assault" also covers "strike" and "wound". Or the fact that it then includes the local definitions of another section in a way which would never pass any code review if it was software.

The idea seems to be much "let's just frame things broadly and rely on prosecutorial discretion".

If I were a criminal, I would much rather do crimes in Germany where I then have to deal with the Strafgesetzbuch (and the Nebenstrafrecht, sure) rather than doing crimes in the US and deal with a labyrinth of federal and state-level norms. In the long run, this will put the US at serious disadvantage attracting criminal talent.

It's possible that "imprison" here is meant in the sense of the crime of "false imprisonment," which is the crime of hindering someone's movement without cause, but which does not require a literal prison.

But even in that sense, someone's arrest by law enforcement would also constitute "imprisoning" them.

My reading of 18 USC 878 in connection with 18 USC 1201 is that it refers to illegal kidnappings only. The key operative word in 1201 is "unlawful".

Arrests by police are almost never so blatantly unlawful that we prosecute the police for kidnapping.

I agree, although I suspect part of that is that a different statute would be used -- the one forbidding deprivation of rights under color of law.

More generally, threatening to have someone arrested is not considered threatening a crime.

I think it would be difficult to prosecute, but I can think of situations where it would be seen as criminal wrongdoing. And I can't think of any categorical reason why threatening to have someone arrested could never be considered threatening a crime.

I think that the arrest of foreign officials wanted by entities outside the US is obviously a federal matter, and absent specific legislation from Congress entirely up to the executive.

I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that Netanyahu's visit would come under the UN Headquarters Agreement. As far as I know, the Headquarters Agreement has the force of a federal statute and provides as follows:

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations

+++

But if Trump did an 180 tomorrow and told Netanyahu that he is not welcome in the US and would be shipped to the Hague in he appeared on US soil, that would be entirely within his power.

As a legal matter, I think the Israelis could start a proceeding in Manhattan Federal Court and have Trump enjoined from impeding or interfering in any way with Netanyahu's visit to the UN.

The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations

TIL. Now I am wondering if any hostile foreign head of state (e.g. an Ayatollah or North Korean) was ever willing to bet his freedom on the US sticking to the letter of the law.

Upon further digging, the WP article on the Rome Statute quotes Article 98(1) as the following:

The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.

So as long as Bibi only came to NY to visit the UN headquarters and not spend his holidays there, he would likely be fine.

TIL. Now I am wondering if any hostile foreign head of state (e.g. an Ayatollah or North Korean) was ever willing to bet his freedom on the US sticking to the letter of the law.

I'm not sure if you would call him a head of state, but Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (former president of Iran) famously visited New York multiple times in the late 2000s. I think doing so is a pretty safe bet given that the US still, more or less, has rule of law. And the law is pretty clear that such persons are immune.

So as long as Bibi only came to NY to visit the UN headquarters and not spend his holidays there, he would likely be fine.

I would imagine that regardless of any UN activity, Bibi (or any other foreign head of state) would not travel to the US (or any other foreign country) without being allowed to enter with diplomatic status.

Ahmedinejad came to NYC in 2011.

Fidel Castro did it twice.

Though those were under a quite different American regime.

It’s probably also close to a constitutional valid arrest under the Logan Act. An actual arrest I believe would. A threat still kind of interferes with official federal foreign policy.

He's obviously not going to seriously try to do this. He'll go to Florence if he does, and he knows it. Equally obviously, he has lots of supporters who eat this stuff up. This is a political stunt, and he knows better than to try.

He's obviously not going to seriously try to do this. He'll go to Florence if he does, and he knows it. Equally obviously, he has lots of supporters who eat this stuff up. This is a political stunt, and he knows better than to try.

I tend to agree with this, but from a tactical point of view, it seems misguided to me. What happens when Netanyahu visits NYC and nothing happens? Seems to me that Mamdani loses face with his supporters. Because it's not a situation where Mamdani can have Netanyahu arrested; wait for the courts to order him released; and then shrug his shoulders and tell his supporters that he gave it his best shot.

I kinda hope that Netanyahu comes to New York and really rubs his visit in Mamdani's face. Apparently Gracie Mansion is open to the public for tours. I hope Netanyahu signs up for a tour and pins up an Israeli flag on the wall.

Seems to me that Mamdani loses face with his supporters.

Nah, he falls back on "legal advice told me I couldn't do it, all fault of Orange Man Bad and MAGA" and they cheer him on.

Mamdani needs an out to agree ahead of time not to arrest Netanyahu or this is an uncharacteristic political stumble.

'Uncharacteristic' stumble?

Mamdani hasn't had any fatal mistakes, but since election he's definitely gotten into unnecessary tiffs with members of the local and state Democratic party interest groups. Some of that may be catnip to some of his base, but I'd not peg him as someone above theatrics that cause inevitable discomfort down the line when political reality hits the road.

He put a collar and leash on Hochul and walked her around the room. That's not a tiff, that's winning.

What Mandami has done so far doesn't rise to the level of a threat. The article says he's "discussing" it. If these discussions actually happen, his law department will tell him "LOL no you can't do that". It's just hot air until he gives the order. And unless he has some handpicked fanatics in the NYPD, NYPD won't challenge the Secret Service even if he does.

Yeah agree, it just seems like basic political signaling. Shows that he agrees with his supporters that Bibi should be in jail, that his hands are tied and he has no power to do anything despite his best wishes, and any anger and blame should be redirected away from him and onto the federal government.

I'm pretty sure that if the positions were reversed you'd see the left screaming about fascism, racism, and all kinds of other things.

It may be a pointless political move on Mamdani's part, but bitching about it is certainly legit.

I think the implication is "if my lawyers say I can" is roughly the same as "in Minecraft". I'm not sure I buy it completely here, but "I'm going to murder [person] if my lawyers say I can" does seem dumb enough to express such an intent.

I think the implication is "if my lawyers say I can" is roughly the same as "in Minecraft". I'm not sure I buy it completely here, but "I'm going to murder [person] if my lawyers say I can" does seem dumb enough to express such an intent.

I would give Mamdani leeway for the exact same reason I would give Netanyahu leeway: People who serve executive functions in government need to be able to discuss, debate, and effectuate public policies without the constant threat of prosecution by their political enemies. You can always look at a controversial prime minister, president, big city mayor, etc. and twist something he's done into an arguable crime (or war crime). (Well, not always, but still.)

To be sure, I'm willing to make an exception for extremely egregious behavior, but of Netanyahu, Trump, Mamdani, etc., none of them have come anywhere near doing anything which would justify prosecution. Partisan hacks from both sides might say otherwise, but that's exactly the point. We don't want partisan hacks running around pursuing political prosecutions.

I hope Trump announces that he's asked the DOJ to investigate whether Mamdani can be prosecuted for violating 18 USC 878 and afterwards everyone shuts up.

A city mayor with no authority to conduct foreign relations proposing the arrest of an internationally protected person in violation of both US federal law and a UN treaty that the US is party to does not seem to me to be a simple "discussion of public policy". It feels like a line has been crossed quite decisively.

Mamdani feels like he is trying to run NYC as a sovereign city-state and doesn't want to explicitly acknowledge the reality that he is legally required to defer to the authority of higher political entities. It really shows here, where his discussion of why he won't actually do the arrest mentions "the laws here in New York City." New York City doesn't have a law about this! This feels very much like a phrasing deliberately chosen to avoid acknowledging that New York City is under the political authority of the United States.

A city mayor with no authority to conduct foreign relations proposing the arrest of an internationally protected person in violation of both US federal law and a UN treaty that the US is party to does not seem to me to be a simple "discussion of public policy". It feels like a line has been crossed quite decisively.

As much as I hate Mamdani (that's actually an understatement -- I think Mamdani is a vile contemptible human being) I would have to disagree with this. If the Trump Administration got an indictment of Mamdani and I were the assigned federal judge, I would dismiss the indictment. I'm not sure what legal doctrine I would hang my hat on, but the basic idea is that this sort of political trash-talking is protected.

No, you don't understand. It's good and OK when trump does it, but it's bad and norms violating when mamdani does it, because that's why.

for real though, the level of motivated reasoning on this one is interesting to see; how some plainly stated threats from the executive need to be carefully considered because of the context, and a virtue signaling hedge from a mayor is a violation that needs to be punished with the full force of the state.

No, you don't understand. It's good and OK when trump does it, but it's bad and norms violating when mamdani does it, because that's why.

for real though, the level of motivated reasoning on this one is interesting to see; how some plainly stated threats from the executive need to be carefully considered because of the context, and a virtue signaling hedge from a mayor is a violation that needs to be punished with the full force of the state.

I'm not sure I see your point here, but I certainly concede that there are partisan hacks on both sides. By "partisan hack," I mean someone who is outraged by X when it's done by the enemy tribe and/or outgroup but defends a very similar (or far worse) X' when it's done by someone from his own tribe/ingroup/allied groups.

Just observing how the population of this board has changed over time. There were always a good amount of partisan hacks; now I would say it is majority hacks with a thin film of regular partisans and five or six people anywhere left of right left writing.

Nobody is getting arrested by anybody. This is just political pantomime, like Dawkins and a bunch of the New Atheists trying to show off how Tough they were, calling on the British government to put Pope Benedict on trial.

Zohran is signalling for his DSA pals and the white liberal voters that he's a Tough Guy on the right side of history. Netanyahu will love this, he can play up to it back home and help save his neck a little longer. It's also giving Trump a wonderful platform.

Everyone will make hay out of this, no one will do anything practical in reality.

The hysteria over this flies both ways.

The DOJ has no grounds to take any action against Mamdani as he has only said that he was in active conversation with the legal team over whether or not he could arrest Netanyahu. That can't be illegal, can it? Following that the law apparently says he can't arrest Netanyahu so this is just PR for the lefty base.

That being said, Israel is an apartheid state engaged in terrorism against civilians in large areas that it wants to ethnically cleanse and settle with the genetically correct people. The UN is by their own standards denigrating itself via inaction against such a regime. As is the rest of the world who holds on to the pretense that this is bad under any other circumstance.

To that extent the UN can not act as if their own inadequacies and failures are excusable when they fly in the face of the moral decency felt by free and democratic societies that are fast seeing their electorate turning into single issue voters due to the corruption and crimes committed by zionists and Israel.

Maybe the people of NYC don't want to host the UN if this is what the organization stands for.

Is Israel more or less of an apartheid state compared to its neighbors?

I don't know. Is there apartheid lore I'm missing from the middle East?

That being said, Israel is an apartheid state engaged in terrorism against civilians in large areas that it wants to ethnically cleanse and settle with the genetically correct people.

Israel is not apartheid state. There doesn't seems to be segregation inside Israel. People in the west bank and gaza are not israeli citizens so how can Israel apply apartheid to them?

For the ethical cleansing - Israel seems to be pretty bad at it. We have more Palestinians than ever.

Israel is not apartheid state. There doesn't seems to be segregation inside Israel. People in the west bank and gaza are not israeli citizens so how can Israel apply apartheid to them?

The South Africans also claimed "Zulus in the Bantustans aren't South Africans so how can we apply apartheid to them" and yet that little trick didn't fool anyone. The essential element is that the West Bank and Gaza are under effectively under Israeli sovereignty yet their people have no citizenship, the textbook example of apartheid.

For the ethical cleansing - Israel seems to be pretty bad at it. We have more Palestinians than ever.

Yes, they are bad at it. The essential difference between them and the Germans is competence: the Israelis are more cowardly, less capable and less self reliant. First as a tragedy, now as a farce and all that. There have been plenty of incompetent genocidaires throughout history; the Rwandan genocide ended with the genocidaires actually losing the war to their would-be victims, for example.

Also we have no idea how many Palestinians there are since they refuse to allow any kind of unbiased outside monitors in to actually figure out how many Palestinians there are. Famously the 1948 World Almanac claimed that the Jewish population had actually increased during the war but that was because the Almanac was using old data.

So, your argument is that they totally definitely for sure WANT to kill all the Palestinians. (I suppose that before Oct. 7 2023 they just had other things on their mind, like controlling global finance.) With that as a given, the fact that they HAVEN'T is only explained by being so darn incompetent. The Israeli tanks and missiles are being stopped from razing every city to the ground by ___ (please fill in the blank here, presumably with something other than "being a civilized Western nation").

The Israeli government was seriously discussing shutting off all the water to Gaza. The only reason they didn’t do that was because if the massive international outcry.

I suppose I'll have to take your word for it that they were totally definitely for sure seriously discussing stopping giving a utility to the Palestinians, and then didn't stop giving the utility to the Palestinians. Those jerks. You did lead me to a fun Wikipedia page talking about water in the Palestinian territories. After the mandatory Israel-blaming, there's this buried gem:

In all 25 municipalities in the Gaza strip, water provision is the responsibility of the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU). However, the utility is still in the process of being set up and exercise its legal tasks. The intended procedure is that the municipalities receive technical assistance by the CMWU and gradually transfer their staff and assets to it. According to the World Bank, this model led to some improvements like faster repair of leakage and economies of scale. However, the plan is far from being fully implemented. The model experienced serious problems which are mainly caused by the unstable political conditions in the Gaza strip since 2008, including differences between municipalities governed by Hamas and Fatah, so that some municipalities refused to transfer their assets and staff to CMWU.

So, the Palestinians have spent 18 years not handling basic services because of their dysfunctional government. But if the Israelis stop covering the slack, it's "genocide" I guess.

If I lock a hooker in my basement and then stop giving her water bottles, that’s murder. I can’t argue that the stupid bitch should have been responsible for her own utilities payments.

The essential element is that the West Bank and Gaza are under effectively under Israeli sovereignty yet their people have no citizenship, the textbook example of apartheid.

They are not under Israeli sovereignty. Israel doesn't claim to own them or rule them. Both are orphaned ex Egypt and Jordanian territories. And if tomorrow Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or the Alpha centauries offer to conquer the west bank and gaza, Israel will welcome them and unroll the red carpet.

Also we have no idea how many Palestinians there are since they refuse to allow any kind of unbiased outside monitors in to actually figure out how many Palestinians there are.

I think we can guestimate by how many hospitals Gaza ministry of health has claimed to have been destroyed.

The essential element is that the West Bank and Gaza are under effectively under Israeli sovereignty yet their people have no citizenship, the textbook example of apartheid.

I think it's worth pointing out that under your definition, Lebanon is an apartheid state; Syria is an apartheid state; Egypt is an apartheid state; heck, even Norway is an apartheid state.

I think it's worth pointing out that under your definition, Lebanon is an apartheid state; Syria is an apartheid state; Egypt is an apartheid state; heck, even Norway is an apartheid state.

I'm not VIM but what exactly do you mean by that? Because Norway etc has non-citizens in its territory?

I'm not VIM but what exactly do you mean by that? Because Norway etc has non-citizens in its territory?

  1. Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon (even for generations) don't get citizenship. They are considered "refugees," they are not allowed to vote, own land, or work in various professions.

  2. The situation is similar in Syria and Egypt.

  3. Norway exercises sovereignty over the Russian town of Barentsburg. As far as I know, Russians living there don't get Norwegian citizenship even if they are born there.

I'm sure we can all appreciate the real world difference between the Russian owned coal mining outpost of Barentsburg, hosting a population of ~300 that operates on Norwegian land, and Palestine.

Or appreciate that refugees from the Israeli Palestine conflict are not the same as Palestinians living on their own land.

Pretending that no one understands what apartheid means is just annoying wordplay. Israel occupies land and legally distinguishes between the populations within using various criteria and discriminates accordingly to maintain control for the designated ethnicity, just like SA did. They employ de facto separate voting rolls, just like SA. They even deploy the same alleged tokenism SA did. It's as close as you can get to the original to the point of parody. But regardless of that, the practical effect is the same.

The Israelis as they exist today never intend to relinquish any relevant representative control over the explicitly racially defined jewish state of Israel to anyone other than jews. They define themselves ethnically. They define their state ethnically. It is not possible for Israel to exist without jews. It's not possible for the state to be jewish without jewish sovereignty.

But when you live on the same land as a population group that is not jewish then you either make your bed as an apartheid state to maintain your ethnosupremacy over the land or you let everyone vote. There's no argument for why West Bank jews can vote in Israeli elections but West Bank Palestinians can not that is not de facto apartheid driven.

The Israelis as they exist today never intend to relinquish any relevant representative control over the explicitly racially defined jewish state of Israel to anyone other than jews. They define themselves ethnically. They define their state ethnically. It is not possible for Israel to exist without jews. It's not possible for the state to be jewish without jewish sovereignty.

And I assume you're similarly outraged by the existence of Japan, South Korea, Liberia etc., all of which are ethnostates in fact if not expressly in law? Or for that matter, essentially any Arab nation, most of which purged themselves of their Jewish, Christian, Druze etc. minorities at some point in the last eight decades or so.

More comments

There's no argument for why West Bank jews can vote in Israeli elections but West Bank Palestinians can not that is not de facto apartheid driven.

France and Hungary, and most other European countries, let their citizens living outside the country vote. I used to have a friend who was born in the United States to a French mother and (at the time I knew him) had never lived in France his whole life - but he was still regularly voting in French elections.

Would you say that French voting law is based on apartheid, because they let him vote but not me?

Now, of course, there is a difference: France does not have military bases on American soil and does not have any oversight over the American government. But France didn't let Germans vote in 1946, either, even as they were maintaining a literal military occupation over part of Germany. Of course, that was more obviously justified than the Israeli powers over the Palestinian government - but even if you argue the Israeli example isn't justified, it remains at least "an argument... that is not de facto apartheid driven."

More comments

Pretending that no one understands what apartheid means is just annoying wordplay.

OMW was making a (pretty interesting) objection to a definition. If someone offers up a definition that can't stand up to annoying wordplay, it should probably be modified. (There's no shame in tweaking a definition; changing your argument in response to correct objections can only strengthen it, unless it is fundamentally weak).

More comments

Yes, but this is that thing you do when you strip things of all context and then leap in saying, 'har har! Under your definition, Britain is an apartheid state!'. Resulting in an incredibly long definition which to be perfectly honest I believe you would either nitpick to death or say, 'well, clearly this definition was created to allow Israel to be an apartheid state without Norway or Britain'.

In practice words have fuzzy definitions and 'partitioning your state to exclude a specific citizenry that you hate and fear but nevertheless can't actually kill' is pretty close to apartheid.

partitioning your state to exclude a specific citizenry

Which is question-begging. Asking that question doesn't resolve the antecedent question of what is part of the State.

Not begging anything. To my eyes Israel exerts de-facto authority over Gaza. Because it feels it has to, because it doesn't trust the Gazans (understandably) enough to let them alone, but it also doesn't trust them enough to let them be part of the state. This is the circumstance I think of as apartheid.

Yes, but this is that thing you do when you strip things of all context

I think the context-stripping door was opened by those who want to use a specific, principled-sounding words such as "apartheid" or "terrorism" to tar Israel.

Once you accuse Israel of these things, it's completely reasonable to ask for definitions of those words. And to see if the word is applied universally or if there is a special definition for Israel.

I'm the last person to deny that nasty words have their definitions stretched for political goals, and I don't even like the Palestinians, but Israel really does look like a pretty damn clear example of an apartheid state to me.

but Israel really does look like a pretty damn clear example of an apartheid state to me.

If you want to make that claim, fine, but it's reasonable to ask how you are defining "apartheid." Because if you have a special, broader, definition which applies only to Israel, it undermines your point. To use your words, it suggests that you are stretching the definition of a nasty word for political goals.

ETA: As an alternative, you could simply argue that it's improper for Israel to rule over the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea & Samaria without giving them a voice in Israeli government. In response, I could point out that doing so is the best among various bad alternatives; and so on. But as soon as you start throwing the word "apartheid" around, you've opened a door. To use your words, you've stripped context.

so this is just PR for the lefty base.

Precisely. Mamdani is a politician first and foremost, not some socialist demi-god who will use his position as ruler of the richest, most powerful and important American city to bring about paradise on Earth now that finally Real Communism can be practiced.

I'm about as opposed to the Israelis' actions in Palestine as it gets, but I believe that hosting the UN ought to entail some sort of responsibility that surpasses object-level moral concerns. Really, the UN is somewhat like the Motte in that its purpose is to provide a neutral ground for parties to talk to each other who would never do so otherwise, except with the UN there are rather more things at stake.

If the people of NYC can't keep their moral principles in their pants for this higher purpose, maybe they should in fact not be allowed to host the UN, and the headquarters should move to a place with a higher decoupling waterline. It's their loss, or that of the US as a whole if they are incapable of finding any other site to guarantee safe passage for the de facto representatives of every significant piece of clay. (I'm sure China would be happy to set up a special economic zone with hookers and blow somewhere if nobody else is willing to step up.)

If the people of NYC can't keep their moral principles in their pants for this higher purpose, maybe they should in fact not be allowed to host the UN,

One could argue that in practice it doesn't matter since the Supremacy Clause strips NYC of any power to do anything. Heck, it's difficult for NYC to enforce its parking laws against UN diplomats.

But yeah, as a general principle the Mayor of NYC should refrain from this kind of talk.

as a general principle the Mayor of NYC should refrain from this kind of talk.

What's funny is this was a big win of Mamdami's campaign in the "what are your top priorities as mayor and why is #1 visiting Israel?" debate. That's basically what he said and he looked fantastic. Basically stole Trump's excellent "no new wars" rally vibes

I'm not seeing a failure mode for Mamdani voters here. As far as they are concerned their moral principles are the reason the UN exists in the first place. If the UN is not serving those principles then what's the point of venerating it? Create a migrant hotel for Palestinians out of the headquarters instead. Host an annual anti-zionism conference. Do something that lines up with the morals of the demos.

To steelman the lefty base, Israel has been waging its ethnocentric terror campaign against the Palestinians for decades. The time to invoke the sanctity of our international institutions passed us by a long time ago. The moment Israel stopped pulling their punches after Oct.7 and the UN did nothing, any surface argument for maintaining the pretense that these institutions matter went out the window.

The UN is not and can not serve as the world police enforcing what the US wants and thinks is moral on everyone else, because a UN that does it is a UN no more. The only reason it can exist is precisely because it doesn't get involved if any of the major players in the world don't want it to. If it ever did, those major players leave and it becomes yet another generic partnership between allies, which we have plenty of and keep creating more, rather than an international conference between opposing nations which we have a scant few.

The UN's best point is not in forcing our own desires onto Russia or China or India or whatever else, but coordinating with them to achieve the few goals that all of us can agree on regardless of our difference in values.

Wouldn’t the same logic apply to North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and many more members of the UN? If the UN’s purpose is to “do something” when states violate moral principles, then there won’t be many member states left.

If we care about doling out equal punishment to all at the same time based on nothing but moral intuition then the same logic applies. Doubly so if we pretend we are not human beings with agency and capacity for strategy and understanding of context but instead mindless automatons that have to follow every possible strand of 'logic' to its conclusion or our heads blow up. But that's obviously not the case so no.

The current issue being focused on is Israel. The current strategy is aimed at disrupting and ultimately stopping the regime. If the power of anyone relevant can be leveraged to that end in any relevant way then that should obviously be done so long as it's beneficial to the cause. To that extent everything that's going on with this political theater is 'logical'. Mamdani has to demonstrate ill intent towards zionists at the behest of his electorate. And if you asked the NYC electorate if risking the sanctity of the UN was worth disrupting the Israeli government that is terrorizing Palestinians then the answer would be yes.

The UN rather uniquely tried to do something about North Korea, but this was the one time in the cold war that the communists forgot to veto action and it was not a mistake they repeated.

It's not moral principles, it's showing off, like the sanctuary city stuff and then all those immigrants turning up was a problem so they needed to be bussed off somewhere else.

I think that's what 4bpp is saying. Saying something like "keeping their moral principles in their pants" is a good way to put it. It's like having a big dick. Instead of a dick though, it's big morals. A lot of people who have it want to show it off as much as they can.

As usual, and as we have seen from the UN over many decades too, the anti Israel people are extremely selective with who earns their anger. There are many other brutal leaders in this world who Mamdani is for some reason not eager to arrest.

Who are those leaders and what is their relationship with the US and the UN?

It seems pretty obvious that what's driving the negative PR hounding Israel is decades of hawkish zionist aggression that's been destabilizing the middle East and killing millions. Their most recent outburst of killing Palestinian civilians and dragging the US into conflict with Iran doesn't help either.

But on top of all of that zionism, Israel and Netanyahu still hold on to reverence and support from many western elites. Who constantly belittle themselves in front of their own people to suck up to zionists like beaten dogs.

So it's hardly a mystery then why far left candidates like Mamdani signal hostile intent when the entire far left wing hates Israel.

Who are those leaders and what is their relationship with the US and the UN?

Kim Jong Un, Xi, Salman bin Abdulaziz, Putin, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, it’s a pretty long list.

Outside of the oil sheiks, all of them are already either in open conflict, proxy conflict or cold wars against the US. I don't think it's selective at all to go after Israel given the US is already going after everyone else. Outside of the oil sheiks, of course. But they, despite everything, managed to play the PR game better than Israel so it's hardly a mystery why their heads are not on the lefty chopping block first.

I think Netanyahu should be arrested, but it's not going to happen in New York while he's visiting the UN, and Mamdani knows this damn well as much as the rest of us do, so it's just a cheap PR stunt which makes real pushback on Israeli aggression even harder.

That's part of what annoys me about this. Mamdani is creating easy propaganda for his enemies as well as his friends. Does anyone really think Netanyahu isn't going to use this to maximise "anti-Semitism is rampant, we have to protect ourselves, only by pushing forward and destroying Hamas/Hezbollah/Lebanon/Syria/anyone else we can think of can the Jewish people finally be safe in the world"?

This strikes as "Lemme at 'im, lemme at 'im!" behaviour. That is, getting fighty while your friends hold you back. It lets you broadcast your furious manly pride and aggression without any risk of having to follow through with it, and you can cast shade on the people holding you back for being cowards.

This strikes as "Lemme at 'im, lemme at 'im!" behaviour. That is, getting fighty while your friends hold you back. It lets you broadcast your furious manly pride and aggression without any risk of having to follow through with it, and you can cast shade on the people holding you back for being cowards.

I tend to agree, but if Netanyahu shows up in New York and nothing happens, it arguably causes Mamdani to lose face and look ineffectual. In fact, if I were Netanyahu, I would make a point of going down to One Police Plaza to apply for a dog license or something. And take a tour of Gracie Mansion.

Mamdani is not Greg Abbott who can line up the troops to deter the federal government into letting him get away with stuff(and even then- only with Joe Biden)- and if he's not savvy enough to know it, well, that's limboing under a very low bar, the sort of which would result in him actually trying to arrest Netanyahu- and probably getting arrested by the NYPD for giving the order. Everything we know about him is that he'll come up with some reason to get out of it ahead of time.

Promising things you know are impossible is pretty standard politician behavior, but empty political promises normally consist of things that you won't actually get in trouble for promising. Mamdani mentions discussing his options re: Netanyahu with the city's legal team, but surely any competent lawyer would be aware of 18 USC 878 and would advise him strongly to shut the fuck up about wanting to arrest a foreign head of state, which suggests that either Mamdani's lawyers are incompetent or he is ignoring them. And I cannot possibly imagine anyone at the UN being happy about any suggestion that the mayor of the city that hosts the UN thinks that section 11 of the UN Headquarters Agreement is optional.

Does saying "I will do X but first I will check if it's legal, and if it's illegal I won't do it" actually count as "threatening to do X", legally?

I suppose it depends on the wording of the announcement. "There might be a loophole thst allows me to legally stab you; you stay right there while I double-check with my lawyer and sharpen my knife" I would think could be considered a legal threat, but I am of course no lawyer.

Nah, Mamdani is being very careful to not fall foul of the precise and exact letter of the law. "I never said I would arrest him, I only said I was taking legal advice on what our options were". So he can come back with "I was advised this is impossible" and he gets to shrug and tell his partisans "Sorry guys, hands tied, whatcha gonna do?"

With the implication of ‘this is why I should be in charge of the legislature’ for good measure.

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