site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14871 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 27, 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.

Normally I'd object to the word "invasion" used to describe illegal immigration, but not in this case, having seen the footage (e.g. here. That account is generally unreliable but there don't seem to be questions about that footage), it's hard to say otherwise. But did you HAVE to make it about the Jews this time? Could you not do that for ONE post? It's not Israel or the Jews doing this, Spain has their own suicidal lefties.

Not sure what Spain can do at this point, given they won't use harsh measures. One unlikely possibility is to evacuate and abandon Ceuta, which would make it an invasion and conquest, though the actual invaders wouldn't get what they wanted from that.

This didn't come out of nowhere randomly, it was coordinated. America, Israel, Morocco, and Spain are the players involved here. American policy shifts on Ceuta, at the behest of Rubio, right before this happens, and AEI calls for this to happen in the Middle East Forum right before it happens. A geopolitical game to punish Spain and reward Morocco (a US and Israeli ally) is far more likely than a random migration wave of 60,000+ people at the same time. Combined with veiled threats and gloating from Israeli diplomats, it's the more likely explanation.

America, Israel, Morocco, and Spain are the players involved here.

Aside from tweets, what is your evidence for Israeli involvement?

Your post is arguing the Israelis are involved, but you're already assuming the conclusion.

Morocco is an Israeli ally, when they make a major geopolitical move it's basically given it was in coordination with their major allies. Israel has a motive to facilitate this move. Israeli Newspapers have suggested doing exactly this, Abraham Accords reach the Strait: how Israel can help Morocco reclaim its north

US-Spain tensions over NATO, Iran create opening for Morocco to press claims on Ceuta and Melilla, with Israel positioned to back Rabat diplomatically within US-led alliance that increasingly favors cooperative partners over European holdouts

...

The geopolitical earthquake shaking Washington's relationship with Madrid has opened an unexpected window for one of the Arab world's oldest territorial grievances. Spain's refusal to allow the United States access to its Rota and Morón military bases during the Iran campaign, its consistent failure to meet NATO defense spending targets, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's confrontational posture toward the Trump administration have collectively generated something rare in North African affairs: a genuine crack in Spain's strategic armor over Ceuta and Melilla. Into that crack, Morocco's most consequential new partner, Israel, is uniquely positioned to press.

The pieces have been assembling for months. In March 2026, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, writing through the Middle East Forum, called on the Trump administration to formally recognize Ceuta and Melilla as occupied Moroccan territory, branding Spain "a colonial power running colonies across the Strait of Gibraltar." Days later, Representative Mario Díaz-Balart, chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security and one of Marco Rubio's closest congressional confidants, declared publicly that the enclaves "are not in the geographic territory of Spain" but rather in Moroccan territory, and that their fate should be "established, negotiated, and discussed between friends and allies." This was not the fringe speaking. This was the architecture of a coordinated strategic repositioning.

...

The Abraham Accords transformed Morocco from a quiet interlocutor with Israel into a formal military partner. In January 2026, Israel and Morocco signed a joint military work plan for the year during the third meeting of their Joint Military Committee in Tel Aviv, which the IDF described as deepening cooperation with a "key partner for regional stability." The two countries had already concluded a security cooperation agreement in 2021. This bilateral architecture gives Israel something it has rarely possessed in North African politics: direct strategic stake in Rabat's regional success.

That stake has an obvious application to Ceuta and Melilla. The Trump administration's Abrahamic coalition, built around shared opposition to Iran and common economic incentives, has created an operational triangular relationship between Washington, Jerusalem, and Rabat. Israel's voice in that triangle carries disproportionate weight. When Israeli officials signal alignment with a partner's strategic interests, that signal registers powerfully in a White House that has placed Abraham Accords expansion at the center of its foreign policy vision. Morocco's territorial claim over the enclaves is not simply a bilateral dispute with Spain; it is increasingly a litmus test for whether the Trump administration will reward its most cooperative partners over its most obstinate NATO members.

Israel can advance Morocco's cause through three distinct channels. First, through direct diplomatic signaling. Israeli acknowledgment that Spain's continued occupation of African territory undermines the post-colonial credibility that normalization frameworks require would reframe Ceuta and Melilla as a regional governance issue, not merely a bilateral spat. Second, through Washington corridors where Israel's influence is considerable, Israeli officials can amplify the case that Morocco's strategic contribution, anchoring the western Mediterranean, controlling the southern approach to the Strait of Gibraltar, and serving as America's longest-standing treaty partner, warrants concrete American support on its most persistent territorial demand. Third, Israel can expose Spain's glaring hypocrisy. Madrid has been among the loudest European voices condemning Israeli territorial policies and settlements.

Arguments from motives are meaningless.

"Johnson stood to benefit from JFK's assassination!"
"Okay, but do you have any evidence he was involved?"
"He stood to benefit! How much more evidence do you want?"

Motive and means and opportunity. Motive alone doesn't mean much of anything.

I would like to believe your reasoning is more sophisticated than "something bad happens in a country -> that country has criticised Israel in the past -> therefore, the bad thing was deliberately orchestrated by Israel". But you're really not presenting a lot of persuasive evidence that it's more sophisticated than that.

The means are exactly what was suggested by this Israeli paper and Michael Rubin at the AEI- rush the border and create a crisis... Elections in Spain are next year and this is going to hurt the left-wing government. Israeli diplomats are even using the crisis to "expose Spain's hypocrisy" which was also suggested directly by the article... The mean, motives, and opportunity are clear. And the alternative explanation: "random migration event" holds no water.

I agree with you that it may be coordinated. My question is why you don't consider the possibility that it was coordinated by the Moroccan government, but instead immediately jump to the conclusion that it's the Israelis pulling the strings.

(I mean, I know why you jumped to that conclusion. I'm just pointing out holes in your reasoning.)

Of course it was directly coordinated by the Moroccan government. But at a geopolitical level it was also likewise coordinated with Morocco's allies, which would be Israel and the United States. And Israeli newspapers and Zionist American thinktanks lay out the means, motives, and opportunities for doing exactly what has happened.

By this logic, Israel is also behind Eurovision's winners consistently being shitty. (Which might even be true.)

You can play the degrees of association game to ascribe blame to Israel on anything. The problem isn't that your theory doesn't explain your thesis: it's that it explains too much.

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