site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25249 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.

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.

Well no, because none of those countries are exercising sovereignty over conquered territory whose people are kept in a state of permanent statelessness for purely demographic reasons. Try again

Well no, because none of those countries are exercising sovereignty over conquered territory whose people are kept in a state of permanent statelessness for purely demographic reasons. Try again

It seems to me you are shifting the goalposts here. For example, your previous post said nothing about "conquered territory."

At this point, I would ask you to lay your specific definition of "apartheid state" so that the goalposts are firmly in place. I think that it's going to be hard for you to define "apartheid state" in such a way that (1) it's broad enough to apply to Israel; (2) it's not broad enough to apply to states such as Lebanon (which has long denied citizenship to Palestinian Arabs who have lived their for generations); and (3) it's not an obvious gerrymander definition created in order to apply only to Israel.

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.

Unlike the many zionists and jewish people I've interacted with online over the years who continuously argue against ethnocentrism, national security and sovereignty for people who are not jewish, I'm supportive of all nations having a secure homeland.

So... you're okay with the existence of Israel, then?

I'm OK with the existence of a jewish homeland. Israel as a particular project is problematic as it infringes on another peoples homeland. I'm also reluctant to offer much support for the Israeli side in that dispute given how belligerently zionists have behaved.

I'm OK with the existence of a jewish homeland. Israel as a particular project is problematic as it infringes on another peoples homeland.

Then where would you be happy with the existence of a Jewish homeland?

More comments

That viewpoint seems to privilege the peoples who have shamelessly genocided other peoples from what is now their homeland before it became uncool.

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."

The argument following those admissions is that either Israel is an apartheid state because they don't intend to ever return sovereignty to the Palestinians. Which is what has been the de facto state of affairs for decades. And no one has any reason to believe otherwise.

Or Israel is placing Palestine under a prolonged illegal occupation. Be that the discrimination, illegal settlements and de facto annexation or whatever else. In either case there is nothing positive for Israel here.

But that's the argument: Its not apartheid, it's illegal occupation. Fine, say that. But the argument is not 'actually it's not apartheid when we do it because we rewrote the laws so the words don't line up 1:1 with South African law'.

Yes! I'm happy to talk about the prolonged Israeli occupation of Palestine, now that we're using the right terms so that discussion can get somewhere rather than getting sidetracked about matters such as election laws internal to Israel!

It's an illegal occupation of Palestine. If we're concerned with using the correct terms. If your argument against SA apartheid is that it's just internal election laws then I'd want you to also recognize that SA wasn't an apartheid state either.

If your main issue is that the occupation of Palestine is illegal under (presumably) international law, then first I suppose we'll need to establish that international law about occupations should carry substantial moral weight in the first place. I'd rather just talk about the object level.

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).

OMW was making a (pretty interesting) objection to a definition.

Thanks, although my central objection on this issue is to people throwing around loaded buzzwords such as "apartheid," "genocide," and so on.

If someone wants to argue that it's wrong for Israel to occupy J & S without allowing the Palestinian Arabs there to have citizenship and voting rights, it's possible to do so without using the word "apartheid." Probably it would be a much more productive discussion.

But once a person has used a word like "apartheid," they've opened a door. It's on them to define the word "apartheid." And if it seems they have stretched the definition (or if they have a special, broader definition to use for Israel), then it undermines their position, perhaps even fatally.

Same with "genocide". People are using that word because they want me to react to it in the same way I'd react to a modern Holocaust. But I will only do that if you show that it's a central example, not a tortured definition being applied in misleading ways to try to emotionally trick me. Either properly define your terms so that they both a) apply to Israel and b) demand an appropriate level of outrage, or stop using the word "genocide" and expecting shocked gasps.

There's nothing interesting to that objection. It's the equivalent of stating that a labrador and a border collie can not both be dogs since they're not exactly the same.

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.

Does it? I don't think the Israeli police can wander directly through the center of Gaza City and arrest whoever they like.

But even moreso, many military forces have held a foreign territory without automatically annexing it to their state. The US occupation of Japan went on, and the solution was a Japanese government, not Japanese representation in the US system.

It's even more outlandish given that such annexation would be against the manifest will of both populations. It runs directly contrary to any norm of self determination to tell both the Gazans and the Israelis that we've just gone and decided that it's now a part of the Israeli state.

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.

In South Africa, you had a situation where after several centuries you had blacks and whites living cheek-by-jowel in one sense and very formally separated in another sense. For various reasons, the blacks hated the whites and the whites hated and feared the blacks. The whites built a system that was designed to allow them to have absolute power over the blacks, partly because they were afraid of what the blacks would do if they ever managed to get the whip hand, partly because having a captive population of workers over whom you had absolute power was very useful. This system involved separating the blacks into enclaves over which the whites had control, and preventing the blacks from getting any formal or informal power over the whites.

To my mind this resonates with what is happening in Israel: a system of formalised segregation based on fear of uprising, a formation of enclaves over which the overlord retains (or attempts to retain) complete control, a strong element of racial hatred on both sides.

it suggests that you are stretching the definition of a nasty word for political goals

Your suggestion is incorrect. I don't give a damn about Israel or Palestine, I think they're both nasty as hell and my main wish is that they keep their torrid little ethnic hatreds out of my country. I'm discussing it here only because, if asked straight, apartheid seems like a totally valid description to me and I considered you to be making a poor argument otherwise.

I'm discussing it here only because, if asked straight, apartheid seems like a totally valid description to me and I considered you to be making a poor argument otherwise.

Ok, then I would ask that you lay out your precise definition of the word "apartheid."

I just did, and you've ignored it. I am not going to lay out three paragraphs of legal text for you to nitpick to death. The thing about words being clusters in thing-space is broadly true, and I've laid out where I think the cluster for apartheid is.

In any case, I've said my piece. You are welcome to disagree but I don't consider 'har har! technically this also applies to East Berlin!' to be good-faith engagement or a good argument, and I disapprove of your repeated attempts to engage in it.

I just did, and you've ignored it.

I would have to disagree with you on that. You have vaguely argued that Israel is like South Africa, but you haven't laid out a precise definition.

Keep in mind, it's completely possible to discuss and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." People use the word "apartheid" because that word has strong emotional and negative connotations. It's like "genocide," "rape," "trafficking," etc.

We could simply argue over (1) what Israel is or isn't doing; and (2) whether what it's doing is right or wrong. But instead, people want to bring a semantic issue into the debate. They want to argue over whether or not what Israel is doing could be called "apartheid."

If you want to have a semantic debate, it's completely reasonable to ask you to define your terms. That's what semantics is about.

I am not going to lay out three paragraphs of legal text for you to nitpick to death.

I don't think "nitpick" is the right word here. Because I don't think it's possible to define "apartheid" in such a way that (1) it's broad enough to apply to Israel; (2) it's narrow enough so that it doesn't apply to numerous other countries (which are not regularly and publicly accused of "apartheid"); and (3) it's not an obvious gerrymander definition set up to apply only to Israel.

Or to put it another way, leaving the word "apartheid" vague gives critics of Israel the opportunity to engage in a motte and bailey strategy.

You can call it "nitpicking" to point it out, but I think it's a very valid objection. Especially since it's completely possible to discuss, debate, and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." The door has been opened.

I don't consider 'har har! technically this also applies to East Berlin!' to be good-faith engagement or a good argument

If you need to caricature what I have said in order to make your point, then I would suggest to you that your point probably isn't all that strong.

Anyway, since you are apparently bowing out of the discussion, I will leave with this question: Why use the word "apartheid" at all to criticize Israel? Why not simply argue that it's wrong for Israel to exercise control over J & S without giving many of the Arab occupants a voice in Israeli government? And if it's so important to apply a specific word to Israel, why is it so unreasonable to ask for a precise definition of that word?

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