site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15986 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 20, 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.

I don't understand what causes so many people to abandon what seem like their important principles when it comes to Israel. It is mystifying to me. My perception is that Democrats, especially younger ones, are becoming more consistent on that question which I think is overall a good thing.

I admit I am no scholar on these topics but "liberal Zionism" has always seemed to me like a contradiction in terms. Zionism, as I understand it, is very explicitly an ethno-nationalist movement for the creation, support, and maintenance of a state for people of Jewish ethnicity. Like, the orientation of the state should explicitly privilege people of a particular ethnicity and religion. The very premise of Zionism seems in contradiction with how I understand liberal principles. Regarding, like, equal rights. Religious tolerance. It seems like liberal Zionists primarily want to claim they support liberal principles... except one Special Exception.

I obviously come down on the "liberal" side here. I think ethnostates are bad. I do not find it at all hard to hold this position consistently, including with respect to Israel.

The problem Anti-Zionists have with Israel isn't really that it's an ethnostate. It's that it's a settler-colonial project that came into existence through the displacement of the native population. Just like the US, Australia, and South Africa.

It’s liberalism within Zionism. Just like the US was founded on Liberalism for white people but slavery for black people. Within the chosen people you do everything in a liberal way (free trade, free speech, free association etc). Within the tribe/species you give those within it liberal rights.

I don't understand what causes so many people to abandon what seem like their important principles when it comes to Israel.

It's because Israel is the ultimate pragmatic hard situation.

Anytime any country wants to kill a bunch of people and steal their stuff the Jews look like an appetizing target.

I don't find ethnostates great, but realistically if the arabs got control of Israel they'd probably end up killing a bunch of the Jews living there and chasing the rest out. Especially now after what has happened. This is what is slowly happening in South Africa.

I think Israel is going to be a ethno-state no matter what, the option is either a Jewish ethnostates or an Arab one. I think this will probably be the case for a lot of countries and places.

I wish there was more America for them to move to. The way to break up these conflicts seems to be having both people move as far away from the context as possible, wait three or four generations and then the only people that cared are dead or too old to fight and their children get to move on.

Like, the orientation of the state should explicitly privilege people of a particular ethnicity and religion. The very premise of Zionism seems in contradiction with how I understand liberal principles.

Does nationalism thus contradict liberal principles, as many progressives claim? After all, nations privilege citizens. I am just as American as any native-born, in terms of believing the creed! Why should someone else be favored above me, especially if it means I lose the right to freedom from want, fear, etc. ?

If so, there's nothing to do but bite the bullet and say that liberalism was always in a marriage of compromise with nationalism and other particularist ideologies for the vast majority of its history and that sort of liberalism is...fine, actually. It worked for everyone until recently. So what?

Does nationalism thus contradict liberal principles, as many progressives claim?

Perhaps it does, but I would argue that this more a knock against progressivism than it is against nationalism.

The rush from judgment can easily be read as a reductio-ad-absurdum progressive moralizing. If Muhammed dreams of killing Jews who are we to deny him the opportunity to follow his dreams and live his best life?

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