site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20816 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 26, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Per my LLM of choice, the Cost Per American (Full Footprint) of the Israel war is about $90 to $96 per person to empty Arab territories in the Levant of weapons of medium destruction, logistics chains, and terror cells, while having a surprisingly low death rate of civilians and Israeli soldiers.

Meanwhile the Ukraine war is costing $560.64 per American to empty Ukraine of non-disabled men, freeze the lines of battle as long as the money lasts, and bring the world closer to nuclear exchange. And that’s before counting the higher price of diesel fuel since the refinery bombings.

The faction of conservatives who want Ukraine to concede the lost provinces are counting utilons, and those who want Israel to stop fighting are counting hedons.

Meanwhile the Ukraine war is costing $560.64 per American to empty Ukraine of non-disabled men, freeze the lines of battle as long as the money lasts, and bring the world closer to nuclear exchange. And that’s before counting the higher price of diesel fuel since the refinery bombings.

To be fair, it's also caused a mass exodus of extremely hot Ukrainian women to the rest of the world, who are highly incentivized to get married. That's kind of a big benefit, at least to those of us struggling in the marriage market.

I think it’s a pretty strong argument for not getting involved in these kinds of wars unless they actually have some strategic importance to us in America. Neither of these wars are of particular importance to America. If Ukraine falls, it’s not going to change anything in the USA or Europe. Iran again was not really a danger to us, and had we done nothing, we’d have lower gas prices on top of not paying for the war.

If Ukraine falls, it’s not going to change anything in the USA or Europe

...other than establishing a precedent that countries can forcibly take land from their neighbours....

Which is why everyone with a Ukrainian flag in their profile is also calling for war against Azerbaijan.

to empty Arab territories in the Levant of weapons of medium destruction, logistics chains, and terror cells

Hamas and Hezbollah replenish their numbers. For whatever reason, Israeli ground troops don't seem capable of forcing the issue, their military doctrine is a little like the English chevauchee in the Hundred Years War. They go into Gaza and blow things up, they go into Lebanon and blow up bridges, buildings. But they don't establish a proper, stable occupation government. It's unsustainable to approach these problems just by helping Israel with bombing, or assisting with bombing.

Israel's been bombing and invading Lebanon periodically for decades and it hasn't improved anything.

Furthermore, even if conquest was on the table, it's cucked to support the imperial ambitions of other countries, especially the most untrustworthy. US resources should be spent on US goals, not Israeli imperialism. Sponsoring Israeli ambitions doesn't necessarily help the US, Israel has never sent troops to fight with the US before and they have a very mercenary, unscrupulous outlook (selling technology to China, spying on everyone including the US). They cause all kinds of problems, most recently encouraging the US into a war with Iran.

Ukraine is another example of the US providing costly support with little hope of return. It would've been wiser to not have a Ukraine policy, to do what China does and try to trade peacefully with these far away countries. Do that in the Middle East too!

For whatever reason, Israeli ground troops don't seem capable of forcing the issue, their military doctrine is a little like the English chevauchee in the Hundred Years War. They go into Gaza and blow things up, they go into Lebanon and blow up bridges, buildings. But they don't establish a proper, stable occupation government.

They have a delicate balancing act they're constrained by: they can't entirely become an international pariah on the level of Iran or NK, and an occupation (and the stories that would come out of a Hamas-influenced Gaza in the middle of an actual occupation and pacification campaign) would be far, far more harmful to public opinion of them in the democracies that matter than a ground offensive and bombing campaign that has, ultimately, killed fewer than one person per bomb dropped.

Israel's been bombing and invading Lebanon periodically for decades and it hasn't improved anything.

Talleyrand once remarked to Napoleon, “You can do everything with the bayonets except sit on them.” Some things you just can’t bomb your way into a solution over, short of nuclear annihilation, and force both parties to lose.

That count is too naive to be useful for decision-making. Ditching Ukraine would cost the US the affection of a big chunk of the European political class, which would not be unlikely to catalyse all sorts of downstream costs from further lawfare against US tech megacorps to rich countries ditching Mastercard/Visa/the petrodollar. It would make Russia more friendly, but these would be very modest gains. Ditching Israel would cost the US the affection of Israel, and some subset of the Jewish diaspora, and in return gain it massive soft power with the entire Islamic world. Nobody knows how to quantify those expectations, and so there are no objective utilons to count.

Ditching Ukraine would cost the US the affection of a big chunk of the European political class

Do we have such a thing to lose in the first place? As a Euroskeptic, what would you point at to convince me that Europe's political class has meaningful affection for America? AFAICT they don't even like themselves.

Oh, European political classes like themselves quite a bit. The common people not so much, I will grant you.

in return gain it massive soft power with the entire Islamic world.

The us us is cozying up with pretty every islamic dictator besides the Iranians. What would dropping Israel really gain?

If they made themselves popular with the populations rather than just the leadership, maybe terrorism would be less of a problem.

Unlikely. Israel is kind of a distraction on that point. They absorb a lot of the pent up demand for terrorism that foments in the Arab world. If they were gone the focus would likely swing back to America.

Israel's prime enemies are Hamas and Hezbollah which are regional Jihadist groups with local concerns. International terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS have never really done much towards Israel. And A lot of the focus on America is because of US support of Israel take away that and combining with the decline of international Jihadism in general and there's not much left.

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