site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25117 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's funny since the opposite is true. Jews have a cultural identity, but no true ethnic identity. There are Kaifeng Jews, Ashkenazis which are essentially a half-European Mischling race, Yemenite Jews are are basically racially Arab ... and there are even Black Israelites. None of these people have evidence they descended from the original Biblical tribes. So it is quite racist that Israel doesn't simply allow anyone who claims to be a Jew have citizenship. Anyone can be a Jew! There's even at least 3 major doctrines, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. In Reform you just have to be a decent human being! Meanwhile there's obviously people who belong to a British ethnicity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish) and then there's immigrants (mainly blacks, Indians, and other Europeans).

Meanwhile there's obviously people who belong to a British ethnicity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish) and then there's immigrants (mainly blacks, Indians, and other Europeans).

Would you classify the Angles and Saxons as British identities, or immigrant?

There's even at least 3 major doctrines, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. In Reform you just have to be a decent human being!

You can tell what branch of Judaism someone belongs to by how they pronounce the Hebrew word for Lord (Adonai):

Orthodox - Ah - Doe - Nye

Conservative - Eye - Duh - No

Reform - Eye - Dee - Nye

Conservative - Eye - Duh - No

Ah, similar to the Goyim pronunciation, which is "I dunno"

Meanwhile there's obviously people who belong to a British ethnicity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish)

Excuse me?

The genetic distance between Irish and Western English is minimal, and the distance between Irish and English as a whole is not much more (thrown off by more Viking and French ancestry in Eastern England). The Irish are more like the English than they are like any other European nation, and are considerably more like each other than, say, the Spanish and the Portuguese who aren't even on separate islands.

Population Ireland England France Germany Poland
Ireland — 0.48 1.32 1.67 2.65
England 0.48 — 0.63 0.62 1.74
France 1.32 0.63 — 0.91 2.29
Germany 1.67 0.62 0.91 — 1.27
Poland 2.65 1.74 2.29 1.27 —

Table shows FST (genetic distance) x 1000.

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3641388

Something like a quarter of England’s residents were of Irish descent before immigration picked up, no? These people seem to be counted as ‘ethnic Britons’- maybe the term has no meaning except not wanting to see brown people.

Come on, this is silly. There are two islands that make up ‘Great Britain’. Until very recently almost everyone on those islands were descended from the peoples of those islands, the newest of whom came here one thousand years ago. That is ‘British’.

These peoples are not French. They are not German (insert obligatory joke about the Royal Family, which proves people do notice them not being British even if it’s mostly pointed out in good fun). They are not Spanish. Nor Indian, African, or Asian. They are British.

the newest of whom came here one thousand years ago

Close, but we're still 40 years shy.

There are two islands that make up 'Great Britain'.

No, Great Britain is one island. The British Isles encompass both Great Britain and Ireland.

If we are nitpicking, "Great Britain" is both the toponym for the main island of the British Isles, and also the legal name for the mostly-obsolete political entity that includes both the main island and the minor islands (like the Isle of Wight and the Hebrides) associated with it. (Apart from an old joke about Berwick being at war with Russia, Great Britain in the political sense = England + Wales + Scotland)

Fair.

Unionists in Belfast?

Most of them are of Scottish descent.

Although their self-identity is more complicated than that, and they now consider themselves to be de facto indigenous to Ulster in the same way that non-woke white Americans consider themselves de facto indigenous to the United States or Boers consider themselves de facto indigenous to South Africa.

And European nationalists should take note of Jewish success in that regard. Where would Israel and Zionism be if it were not a pan-Jewish identarian movement? Imagine if every Jewish subgroup tried to cluster into its own nation with its own language. It wouldn't work, Ashkenazi Nationalism alone could not have built Israel. Its power is derived from being a pan-Jewish movement.

Likewise the European foil to Zionism is not {British Nationalism, Irish Nationalism, French Nationalism, German Nationalism} it's pan-European Nationalism.

Likewise the European foil to Zionism is not {British Nationalism, Irish Nationalism, French Nationalism, German Nationalism} it's pan-European Nationalism.

Does this mean you are pro-EU, or at least support the concept of the EU even if you dislike the current iteration?

Yes definitely, pro-NATO as well. Those are the institutions that would be foundational to a movement like that. Of course the current iteration is far away but the institutional authority is already 75% of the way there.

The EU institutions are more based than western European governments, because of the eastern European influence. The EU has its own uniformed border force (Frontex) who largely have closed the eastern land border to illegal immigration and would have stopped the boats if they weren't being sabotaged by fake search-and-rescue NGOs protected by the French/Spanish/Italian governments.

If the people and governments of the EU wanted to pursue an anti-immigration agenda, they could do so through the existing institutions with no reform needed. And "If the peoples and sovereigns of Christian Europe want to keep the Turk out, we need to do so together or we will end up letting him in separately" is 1000-year old cached conventional wisdom for a reason.

I feel comfortable saying the Ashkenazis could successful make their own small state without help from the other Jewish groups. They would struggle with fertility now. And politically it would have been harder to sell to the west that Israel was just Ashkenazi, but I 100% feel comfortable if they could get the UN etc to agree to Israel that Israel would be fine with only Ashkenazi.

I don't doubt Ashkenazis could run their own small state. But imagine if Israel were divided between an Ashkenazi nation that spoke its own language and a Mizrahi nation that spoke a different language. Different governments, languages, militaries, culture. That would be much weaker than the pan-Jewish nation and movement. The Arabs would prefer them to be divided, wouldn't they?

Isn’t there a 15-20 IQ point difference between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi? Mizrahi are basically just canon fodder for the army. Everything that makes Israel special is the Ashkenazi.

"basically just" is doing a lot of work there. Integrating the Mizrahi into the economy and military is very important to Israel. Their military would be cut in half without the Mizrahi. Israeli GDP wouldn't fall by quite that much due to income inequality but it would constitute the loss of a huge source of labor.

A counterfactual world in which an Ashkenazi from the Ashkenazi Nation can't even hold a verbal conversation with a Mizrahi from the Mizrahi Nation because they speak different languages and have different economies and governments is a world in which they are both easier pickings for their enemies.

If they modestly increased fertility then losing half their soldiers wouldn’t be an issue.

They would also have to deal with having their territorial integrity threatened by a much weaker ally. In the way the dysfunction in Greece percolates to all of Europe. They would need to navigate foreign affairs and security in a far less efficient and political secure manner. An incompetent ally is much more difficult than direct governorship and management.

What if there's economic hardship, political upheaval, or security threats to the Mizrahi Nation? That affects the Ashkenazi Nation but there's only so much they can do as a foreign government even being close allies. I don't see a world where Israel has its influence and status as a set of petty Jewish nationalisms divided along ethnic lines with different languages and governments.

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