site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   15823 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.

the simple fact that it wasn't a war Israel started fact.

That depends on whether you consider the taking of your land to constitute an act of war; generally speaking, taking over someone’s legally-recognized territory (see West Bank) constitutes an act of war. So that’s not a simple fact, it’s an opinion.

Wasn't Gaza Egyptian at one point, though? But I don't recall anyone declaring Egypt controlling it as having been an act of war.

The Wikipedia graph here isn't bad. Looks like Gaza was ruled by Egypt at six points, maybe seven if you count the latter phase of the Fatimid caliphate.

If you look in to the details of the transitions in that graph ... well, it's only a bit of an oversimplification to say that there's acts of war all the way down.

Wasn't Gaza Egyptian at one point, though? But I don't recall anyone declaring Egypt controlling it as having been an act of war.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, at one point before 1967 the PLO formally announced that it was not making any claim as to Egypt-occupied Gaza. The claims that Gaza was part of "Palestine" didn't start until after Egypt left and Israel came in.

This may seem like an obscure fact, but I think it sheds light on the revealed motivations of the Palestinian Arabs as a group. Simply put, they don't actually want to have Gaza; or J+S; etc. Rather, what they want is for there not to be a Jewish state anywhere in the area.

As another example, one can consider their attitudes towards refugees. For example, Palestinian Arabs who live in Lebanon or Jordan. The Palestinian Arabs have announced that if they were to get a state, such refugees would not be absorbed or granted citizenship. Again, this sheds light on their motivations.

I was referring to the most recent "hot war" in Gaza, not to the broader Israel-Palestine conflict. I think this was abundantly obvious from context.

Under this logic, would the 1948 Arab-Israeli war be an illegal act of aggression on the part of the Arabs?

You can't have it both ways. You can't be a revanchist jingoist in rhetoric and hide between the liberal international order when you lose. That's chutzpah. You either live in a world of rule of law and norms or you live by the sword. If the Arabs want to rule by right of conquerer, they can't wail and rend their garments when the Israelis pay them in kind.

That’s complicated by the cessation of the British Mandate, the question of who has the right to declare nationhood post-Mandate, and the tactics of newfound Israel. It’s a complicated question with opinions, not a “simple fact”.

The Israelis were willing to accept the UN partition plan. The Arabs weren't. It's ironic that so many maps that are put forth by the Arabs enshrine those borders of which they rejected in the first place.

But that's beside the point. The UN Charter says all ethnic groups have a right to self-determination, and that includes the Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine. The Arab invasion rendered the question of legality a moot point. No matter what the Israelis did or didn't do tactically, they were the defenders against a war of aggression at the start of their national existence. Their claim to the land is based on the blood they shed to defend it, not in liberal legality.

Does anyone pretend to even contemplate the hypothetical - if the Israelis lost - that the Arabic nations involved would even consider the Israeli claim? No. No one is foolish enough to believe that.

The West Bank is the legally-recognized territory of nobody, and hasn't been since the dissolution of the British Mandate.

UN member states recognize Palestine and Israel recognizes Gaza and West Bank as comprising one singular territory per Oslo II XXXI

Indeed. You can’t “be fair” to an occupier.

In fact, international law does include rules for acting against an occupier.

And why should Gazan’s be held to observe them anymore than Israel and the US’s casual disregard for international law?

You really want the gloves to be entirely off?

Are we back to pretending like international law is a thing now?

There is such a thing. It is not what the UNILC thinks it is. It is what the relevant nations agreed to and can and will accept and enforce.

… and can and will accept and enforce.

Like the US and Israel I presume?

At this point in time, pretty much the US.

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