site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8180 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So I say hang on a second. Their country was attacked, that's for sure. And I validate their right to respond, even if I question the means by which they do so. But now they're suggesting that their ethnic and religious identity is the actual target of attack, then pushing that as grounds to take actions in countries that were otherwise uninvolved in the conflict.

I mean, all those things can be true? Their country was attacked largely because of ethnic/religious identity, and many of the attacks "on zionists" are due to ethnic/religious identity. If there were multiple Jewish-majority nations, perhaps it would be easier to distinguish, but that's not the case.

Sure.

Which one(s), specifically, are the Israelis claiming that Hamas was motivated by, and how does that compare to the stated motivation of Hamas themselves?

My understanding is that the occupation of the West Bank and oppression of Gaza is the most explicit and universal casus belli on the Palestinian side of the conflict. This seems to me far removed from the religious practices of Jews being at odds with those of Islam.

I really do read most of the conflict in that zone as motivated directly by the desire to control the specific territory, rather than a deep-seated racial animus (although that's certainly been building among the inhabitants of the region) or an inherent need to slay the nonbelievers. I see the additional religion and race elements as intentional motivators to keep up the fight over the territory, since you want your fighters to believe its an existential conflict. I'm not so sure this conflict would persist if Israel were to cede the contested zones entirely.

I mean help me out here, even in the Muslim Ottoman Empire days the Jews were not targets for elimination on racial or religious grounds!

This is a direct quote:

most scholars conclude that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized").

Presumably any religious supremacy elements to the feud are even more recent than that???

Like literally the Jews wanted a homeland badly enough to start fighting off the other nations in their newly formed country's vicinity and lord bless them, they won, repeatedly. THAT is a sufficient explanation for why they created so many enemies in a short period of time, and historically speaking, competing claims on 'valued' territory is maybe the single biggest cause of war we know of?

I see the additional religion and race elements as intentional motivators to keep up the fight over the territory, since you want your fighters to believe its an existential conflict. I'm not so sure this conflict would persist if Israel were to cede the contested zones entirely.

The contested zones that the hardline Palestinians want them to concede is all of Israel Palestine from the river to the sea. Surely the Jews of Israel earn themselves no favor from the Palestinians with their flagrant abuses in the west bank but approximately no one in the region actually wants a two state solution.

I really do read most of the conflict in that zone as motivated directly by the desire to control the specific territory, rather than a deep-seated racial animus (although that's certainly been building among the inhabitants of the region) or an inherent need to slay the nonbelievers.

It's kind of both.

Palestinians believe Israelis have no right to be there and the land is theirs. So yes, it is a desire to control the territory, and it's not as if they would spare the Muslim or Christian Israelis should they somehow gain the ability to sweep them into the sea.

But Muslims in general, well before the Zionists first arrived in the Holy Land, have always had a negative attitude towards Jews (yes, the Quran says they are "People of the Book" but the Quran also has lots of passages about how nicely you're supposed to treat your wives, and, well) and Islam is a militant religion that does not accept the presence of non-believers except in a barely-tolerated, clearly subordinate position.

Which one(s), specifically, are the Israelis claiming that Hamas was motivated by, and how does that compare to the stated motivation of Hamas themselves?

I'm not a representative of Israel, but I am pretty sure Israel would claim that it's Jew hatred.

This is apparently from the original Hamas charter:

Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Of course, anyone can say anything about their motivations, and people (obviously) have a strong tendency to engage in whitewashing when describing their motivations. It's pretty likely that if you asked Hamas leadership today about their motivations, they would insist it's just about "fighting Zionism."

But consider that (1) Egypt occupied Gaza for many years; and (2) Egypt blockaded Gaza for many years up to and including the present day. What did the Palestinian Arabs do to resist this "occupation"? Practically nothing. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, back in the day the PLO issued a statement to the effect that it was not contesting Egyptian control of Gaza or Jordanian control of J+S.

I mean help me out here, even in the Muslim Ottoman Empire days the Jews were not targets for elimination on racial or religious grounds!

The phrase "targets for elimination" seems oddly worded to me. As if the person who wrote that phrase is trying to create a misleading impression. Do you believe that there was significant religious persecution of Jews in the Ottoman Empire?

Like literally the Jews wanted a homeland badly enough to start fighting off the other nations in their newly formed country's vicinity and lord bless them, they won, repeatedly. THAT is a sufficient explanation for why they created so many enemies in a short period of time,

Can we agree that there were significant attacks against the Jews in the area before 1948? Can we agree that numerous Arab countries formally declared war on Israel before being defeated in the 1948 war? It seems to me that if you include this context, it appears that the Arabs created themselves as enemies before being defeated in the 1948 war.

I'm not a representative of Israel, but I am pretty sure Israel would claim that it's Jew hatred.

Ahhhh but you're doing the thing.

Is it hatred of Israeli Jews specifically? Or Jews as an ethnic group? Or hatred for Judaism itself and its practitioners?

"Jew Hatred" is under-specified as a motive due to the ambiguity!

I see strong evidence for the first, and much less for the third.

Do you believe that there was significant religious persecution of Jews in the Ottoman Empire?

"Significant" to where there are notable instances of persecution in the historical record?

Absolutely.

Significant to where Jews were ever at even a theoretical risk of being wiped out? Nah. I think Germany takes the cake there.

Not to say that full on genocide is the only bad thing that can happen to a people, I'm just pointing out how much lower down the aggression meter things were for a long time, which you would not expect if Islam and Judaism were mortal enemies the entire time. The Hatfields and McCoys had a deeper blood feud going on than Arabs and Jews did during that period.

Its literally centuries of general co-existence under Ottoman rule, (so not co-equal existence) with spates of violence, then a turning point somewhere in the 19th century. And around 1890 Zionism actually emerges as a cohesive movement, which, at the time, was religiously motivated but as far as I can find has not defined Islam or the Arab world as enemies.

Can we agree that numerous Arab countries formally declared war on Israel before being defeated in the 1948 war? It seems to me that if you include this context, it appears that the Arabs created themselves as enemies before being defeated in the 1948 war.

I think we can. I'm just going off the point that this seems like a turf war more than a religious war at its core.

Not precluding that it would become a religious war, but the animosity was not centered on their competing religious beliefs. Indeed, as I understand Islam the Jews are recognized as a historically significant and distinct group, and Islam's theological precursor, so the Arab nations had to do a lot of rejiggering to make them a valid religious target and enemy (indeed getting into the theories about Israelis not being the original Jewish people).

So anyhow, I am accepting that Jewish ethnic and religious identity are entangled with the Jewish state. But I am not accepting the facial assertion that an an act of war/aggression on Israel implies hatred for all ethnic Jews or even a form of religious rivalry.

I have not seen the articulated chain of logic from "Israeli Civilians were viciously kidnapped/tortured/murdered" to "(ethnic) Jews everywhere are in danger" to "therefore every allied government must enact policies to protect (all) Jews in their territories."

Or more bluntly, if (religious/ethnic) Jews are citizens of the United States, residing in the U.S., I already agree it is the U.S. government's job to protect them... because they're citizens. I do not have to accept that their co-ethnics getting murdered in Israel is grounds for policy change in the U.S.

But (religious/ethnic) Jews in the U.S. will hammer their ethnic connection to Israelis AND their religious connection to American Christians to channel the assertion that an attack on Israel is a direct attack on American Jews too and necessitates American action to protect all Jews as a class.

I am not certain those credits transfer.

But IF those credits do transfer... as mentioned, I think I can likewise take growing levels of unrest and violence against native Britons, with whom I share ethnic and religious heritage, as a personal threat to my life and interests and demand similar special protection?

"Yes, I am an American Citizen who has never been to Europe, but I see British people, in Britain, brutally victimized due to apparent racial and religious hatred. I am racially and religiously entwined with those people, therefore I, too, am in danger."

On the face of it I don't follow that logic. Swap it out:

"Yes I am an American Citizen who has never been to Israel, but I see Jewish people, in Israel, brutally victimized due to apparent racial and religious hatred. I am racially and religiously entwined with those people therefore I, too, am in danger."

And I still don't follow the logic.

I can sense now that someone will try and say "But Jews ARE really in a different situation!" and hokay, please explain why without exploiting that ambiguity between Judaism, Ethnic Jewish heritage, and Isreali citizenship.

Not precluding that it would become a religious war, but the animosity was not centered on their competing religious beliefs. Indeed, as I understand Islam the Jews are recognized as a historically significant and distinct group, and Islam's theological precursor, so the Arab nations had to do a lot of rejiggering to make them a valid religious target and enemy (indeed getting into the theories about Israelis not being the original Jewish people).

As with Christianity, it can be complicated.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

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