site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   24696 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.

I struggle to see the Israeli angle. Looks like a gleeful twitter reaction to an ongoing migrant crisis than a Israel led Muslim invasion.

Israel did not force Pedro to grant amnesty to 500k immigrants. A perceived openness to illegal migrants leads to more illegal migrants. It's not rocket science. Biden's weak stance on border control prompted the migrant crisis in the US, and Trump's stance led to freeze. In either case, the mechanism of entry and the law did not change. It's perceived incentives......

(I wrote this comment before seeing who wrote the post. I should know better)

It's just strange you struggle to see the angle when the angle is directly laid out by Israeli newspapers, and Israel is even doing directly what the article recommends. Why did ultra-Zionist Michael Rubin, representing influential US policy NGOs, directly recommend this back in April? Do you think Rubin being a Zionist Jew had nothing to do with him calling for Morocco to do exactly what it did yesterday, even though Rubin directly cites Spain's enmity towards Israel as justifying his position?

Or to frame it another way, do you think Morocco was involved in orchestrating the crisis? NYT reports being told by multiple migrants they were directed by Moroccan security forces to cross the border.

Ok, so if you admit Morocco was directly involved in the event, then you think it happened totally independent of their military alliance with Israel and totally independent of the enormous enmity between Spain and Israel?

You are saying that it's just a coincidence that Israel's ally Morocco did the thing Israeli advocates and commentators said Israel should support Morocco doing. It's fine to take that position but weird to say you don't see the angle when the angle is corroborated directly from multiple sources.

Italy has suspended Spain from the Schengen Zone, there is going to be huge blowback to the left-wing Spanish government, with elections upcoming, which has been the sworn enemy of Israel for years. To say you don't see the angle makes no sense to me.

What is it exactly that you're accusing Israel of doing here, and why would Israeli involvement be necessary for an explanation when "Morocco facilitated this for Moroccan policy reasons" suffices?

A lot of people would disagree but I’ve come around from thinking you are crazy to believing you have been fundamentally correct on Jewish influence. Atleast as far as the Holocaust was used as a means of convincing western society that any form of racial identity was bad. Maybe that was even a good thing for a while. Plus my gut says 40% plus or minus 10% of the top .1% of wordcells are Jewish so they tend to win a lot of arguments.

I hope now that you are seeing a possibility of the right and Israel having a lot of shared interests against third worldism that we can work together now.

The problem with Zionism is they seem to have had an interests in both promoting ethnonationalism for Israel and erasing nationalism in western society. In the current world I think Zionism should be seeing a lot of benefits to promoting nationalism globally.

I think Jews are overrepresented in the top echelons of a lot of business and intellectual fields, partly due to intelligence and partly due to a bunch of ingroup factors. However, I've always felt that people assume that these Jews are way more monolithic and unified than they actually are. 'There are Jews who are hardcore zionists who want to drive the Palestinians into the Med' and 'There are Jews who laid the groundwork for a lot of modern international moralizing' are both true but I think the actual overlap is minimal and those groups both don't get on particularly well.

This is further emphasized when you notice how low-functioning people who are simultaneously hardcore Zionists and hardcore SJWs tend to be, as they're often socially oblivious enough to have wandered without noticing into a set of beliefs that's extremely unpopular in both circles of the Venn diagram it's in. Sort of a similar pathology to true TERFs, that is, those who are simultaneously hardcore feminists and hardcore anti-trans.

Hardcore feminist-only feminists are usually antitrans, it's SJWs which hold to feminism along with dozens of other beliefs which aren't.

You might think that the pro-trans SJWs lack the credentials to be proper man-hating feminists for various valid reasons, but they are nonetheless overwhelmingly the center of gravity of political actors who conceive of themselves as proper man-hating feminists today.

However, they do not conceive of themselves as man hating feminists first and foremost. They see themselves as primarily opposed to heteronormativity, of which patriarchy is one manifestation.

That's just "man hating feminist" with extra steps, though.

More comments

Sort of a similar pathology to true TERFs, that is, those who are simultaneously hardcore feminists and hardcore anti-trans.

How is that at all contradictory? If anything hardcore feminists should be true TERFs and not give a shit about nonsense males wandering into their spaces. Trans stuff being wedged next to Feminism and Sexuality issues (and Islam half the time on top of it) does produce a bunch of contradictory stuff but I don't see how anybody can find TERFs contradictory to Feminism if they can just reject the femininity/possibility of transition.

I'm not pointing to an ideological contradiction, I'm saying that they’re the overlap of groups that barely overlap.

True though the Rowling case seems indicative that TERFs are more likely to die on that hill/be proactively purged even if generally aligned

True though the Rowling case seems indicative that TERFs are more likely to die on that hill/be proactively purged even if generally aligned

In the US, the TERFs lost and you can no longer be a feminist in good standing unless your feminism includes men pretending to be women. In the UK the battle between trans-inclusive and womyn-born-womyn feminisms is ongoing, with the "TERFs" (they are by no means all radical feminists) having the better of it. Rowling's money may be part of it, but I think it is mostly driven by the different class composition of 2nd wave feminism in the two countries - the most prominent trans-exclusive feminists in the UK are all older women from working-class backgrounds.

More comments

The above poster said Jews don’t act as a monolithic but I think when you say there are a group of Zionists who are also SJW that is a strong indicator that most Jews do have a sense of Jewish interests. Being a Zionists and a SJW still fits fine within Jewish interests historically even if some of the ideologies of the two beliefs are inconsistent.

I would probably argue at this point SJW is against Jewish interests but pre-Oct 7 those fault lines hadn’t been exposed.

You will never get 100% agreement in a tribe but I do think the tribe had gut instincts on rough directionality of their interests.

Did they just not notice or are they simply sticking to their principles even though it comes at a cost?

I'm all for sticking to weird unpopular principles; the problem here is that the principles are incoherent and the rhetorical stance is an appeal to popularity.

the rhetorical stance is an appeal to popularity.

I didn't understand this part.

SJWs generally train in a style of rhetoric that relies on bullying people and presenting yourself as Locally Normal And High Status, which looks ludicrous when it isn’t.

More comments

I hope now that you are seeing a possibility of the right and Israel having a lot of shared interests against third worldism that we can work together now.

It's a tragic relationship, like Jacob and Esau. In an ideal world they would be formidable allies but they are intrinsically not allies, they are foreigners with a chip on their shoulders. They can't be trusted. Both Third Worldism and Israel are the adversary, and I actually wish that were not true but believe it is. The Anglos in their naivete believed in the possibility of such racial cooperation and we are living in the fallout of that.

Nothing needs to last forever. There is no bigger risks to Israel than a third world Muslim Europe. They would be surrounded by enemies in the entire Middle East. And of course Mamdani is already kicking them out of NYC.

Look, despite what people will say, enmity towards Jews is not my goal. If Jews and Israel took serious, serious, serious steps towards a genuine alliance I would be open to it. But right now what I see is Israel bringing the American Empire to the brink in order to take care of its rival Iran. I'm not falling for anti-Islam b8 and pretending it makes us allies because it does not. It is very possible, likely, that both Islam and Israel are threats to America and Europe, and Israel fanning the flames of anti-Islamic sentiment in Europe is not going to move the dial for me. I haven't seen an inkling of genuine attempts at reconciliation, if anything we are at the cusp of seriously harming the global economy on behalf of Israel. Anti-Islam solidarity does not change the situation. Both are a problem and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Israel and Jewish lobbying has a lot to do with the US' actions towards Iran, but saying "Israel bringing the American Empire to the brink in order to take care of its rival Iran" is going too far, I think.

The US foreign policy establishment has strong motives to hate Iran even without Jews/Israel in the picture. They are probably still butt-hurt about what happened in 1979. The CIA and the US military both had people killed in Hezbollah actions in the 1980s. Institutions hold grudges. Iran is also the last major blocker to these institutions' domination of the Middle East.

There is a saying which originated with science that “ideas progress one funeral at a time”. I feel like it would be fair to say that at the current time being butthurt over the Iranian Revolution would be outside of most of the intelligence leadership framework. It was 47 years ago. There would be some graybeards who experience it in the teens and ‘20s but most CIA staff today it would just be something in history books.

This is also assumed to happen in market cycles. And a reason why Aschenbrenner would have an awful concept of risks management. The 2000 tech crash was before he was born.

The counter would be that Trump would still be in the cohort with the memory. And the US does have realpolitik reasons to be involved with Iran.

Anti-Islam bait is not an Israeli psyop in the USA; conservative Americans really do have a sharply negative view of mohammedan savagery.

The US right only has two allies - Israel and Argentina. Israel has well no allies. And as much as you hate it you do know Jews have a lot of power because of their brains and group loyalty.

I would say El Salvador has done a lot more for the US right than Argentina has. But the "US right" shouldn't have any foreign allies at all (and in general nor should any other faction within a democratic country). Your allies are the enemies of your enemies, and the enemy of the US right is the US left. A foreign government who is supporting the US right against the US left is meddling in US domestic politics, which is something foreign governments shouldn't be doing, and something that all US factions who even pretend to be patriotic should be discouraging them from doing.

I think Israel is an ally of the US right, in the sense that Israel does meddle in US domestic politics in a way which is intended to help Republicans and DINOs, but turning support for Israel into a partisan issue doesn't seem to be moving either US public opinion or US policy in a pro-Israeli direction. I also don't think that Netanyahu's explicit, public, partisan-coded opposition to Obama over the JCPOA actually helped Republicans.

The US left has plenty of foreign allies (all of the European center and left), the US right would be kneecapping itself if it refused them.

The political class in DC is more akin to a vassal of Israel than the US as an “ally,” of them.

The US right only has two allies - Israel and Argentina. Israel has well no allies.

Portraying Israel as an ally to the US, with the US not reciprocating really is something...

Granting amnesty turned them from illegal migrants into legal ones. If the usual path is long and expensive, and the “be a nuisance” path has less hassle and a greater chance of success, all humans except the WEIRD will take the latter.

"except the WEIRD" is going too far, but does have truth to it. The West has unusually strong norms about conscientiousness. Luckily for us, these norms contribute to evolutionary success in enough ways that their continued existence seems likely.

Even among the WEIRD, an overwhelming majority would take the "be a nuisance" path as soon as the stakes were high enough.

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