site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24338 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 10, 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 also ultimately have a lot of apathy and also sympathy for both sides. I've known some Israeli Jews, I think it's good for them to build a first-world state, although their friendship has never filled my heart to the brim. I've known some Palestinian Muslims, I've always found them warm people, I feel bad to see them pushed out and squeezed, but I also don't see any real compatibility between our nation and theirs. I've even known some Palestinian Christians, I've seen how they've been abused by the Israelis and abused by the Palestinians, although they're too small and impractical for me to try to have some contrarian third way take.

My sneaking suspicion is that a big part of the problem is the idea of the two-state solution. At this point, Israel is at least three states: Israel, The Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The West Bank and Gaza are not meaningfully the same entity at all, even if they share the same struggle. It seems like every prospective peace is thwarted by the disunity of the Palestinian two sides, even if it's not always the determining factor. I suspect it would be a lot easier to actually work out a peace deal if Gaza was treated as a separate state, or worse, actually wiped off the map. That's another thing, this whole thing would have wrapped up by now if either Israel or Palestine were allowed to wipe each other off the map. But both sides are backed by larger powers plus "The International Community" trying specifically to avoid a final solution. So there aren't any. I wonder if we've saved suffering this way or if after 80 years of intractable conflict the interest was greater than the principle.

Also, a large part of the conflict is exacerbated by the emotions of people who aren't actually involved but identify strongly with one side or the other, like spectators at a particularly grisly sports game. There is a lot of proxy struggle from people who use Israel-Palestine to subsume their more complicated feelings about Western Civilization as such.

But both sides are backed by larger powers plus "The International Community" trying specifically to avoid a final solution. So there aren't any. I wonder if we've saved suffering this way or if after 80 years of intractable conflict the interest was greater than the principle.

The 1948 war and associated population displacement were nothing particularly notable, historically speaking. The refugee problem was grown and cultivated into today's intractable mess and political project of global prominence via the intervention of external parties, not least the UN which funded the refugees in perpetuity. Without that the displaced Arabs would have had to disperse and assimilate decades ago. Then having manufactured the problem, said international bodies have decreed that there is only one acceptable outcome to it, and refuse to see that it isn't viable.

I guess I should add that I do have sympathy for both sides as well. In the same sense that I have sympathy for a stranger dying of an inoperable brain tumor. I certainly wouldn't wish this situation on anyone, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. My apathy is largely born out of the fact that there is almost nothing that can be done given the historical / cultural forces at work. Those measures that might actually work would take immense resources, and I think it's hard to justify giving such resources away with no clear benefit.

I guess this is just one of the flaws in modern Western thought; the idea that all problems A) are solvable, and B) are worth solving no matter the cost if they involve human suffering. This is in many ways analogous to the whole mass migration debate. In its most basic form, this a refusal of the idea that sometimes we have to make difficult decisions. It's saying that we should be allowed to make the comforting, happy decision all the time, and the world must accommodate this. So essentially, it's attempting to deny reality itself, and hoping everything will work out for the best. History has not been kind to this type of thinking.

I guess I should add that I do have sympathy for both sides as well. In the same sense that I have sympathy for a stranger dying of an inoperable brain tumor

Sometimes I do but often, in my darker moments, I think "fuck 'em". Because this stranger had access to the best oncologists in the world and decided to pull a Steve Jobs and try some nonsense. Do you know how many peoples with grievances wish they could have had a tenth of the effort and attention poured into this cause for themselves?

How many people have been murdered and ethnically cleansed with not even the prospect of justice? These people are inordinately centered and it seems to have only fed their own narcissism.

I try not to go down the fuck'em route for two reasons. Firstly, most people had no say or were not even born yet when these decisions were made. Holding groups of people responsible as if they were individuals doesn't make a lot of sense. Secondly and more importantly, cruelty out of malice rather than out of necessity is not something I'm okay with morally. Cruelty is a fact of life. But inflicting it on others for no personal gain other than some sense of schadenfreude is about where I draw the line.

Firstly, most people had no say or were not even born yet when these decisions were made.

This is true of everyone. Plenty of people are dying right now of preventable poverty because of their horrible leadership. It's accepted as a (tragic) fact of life. Why must the Israelis or Palestinians be saved? Why does this tragedy have to be the litmus test for civilization?

But inflicting it on others for no personal gain other than some sense of schadenfreude is about where I draw the line.

I need not inflict anything on them and I don't have the power to in any case. They're inflicting it on one another.

Both true. I certainly have no interest in expending my resources (or to the extent it is my choice, my country's resources) solving this problem. I simply don't on a personal level like taking pleasure in their plight. Based on my (admittedly very subjective) moral framework, apathy is acceptable. Satisfaction isn't.

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