site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23304 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.

The ad is pretty good. I don’t think normal people want to pay $2,000 per household to improve the lives of Jews 6,700 miles away, just twenty years after we spent $3,000,000,000,000 and 4,400 lives doing the same in Iraq. (Well, rather, half the cause of the Iraq war was Jewish lobbying, so $1.5 trillion and 2,200 American lives is the the tab owed by Jewish lobbyists). Haley Stevens’ husband is Jewish and she herself is considering converting to Judaism, and it seems that they’ve chosen to align their loyalty to the Jewish Nation and not America. This isn’t exactly unexpected.

I could literally say the same thing about thousands of things the U.S. government does. It spends massive sums of money. And the candidate whose ad this supports wants to spend an inordinate amount more via M4A. Yes, he obviously wants to cut Israeli aide (while probably increasing aide to Muslim countries) but on net will spend way more.

So it isn’t actually an argument about austerity or even foreign aide—it’s just hating on Israel. That is, it’s an isolated demand for rigor.

So it isn’t actually an argument about austerity or even foreign aide—it’s just hating on Israel. That is, it’s an isolated demand for rigor.

Yeah, when Trump made his ad attacking Kamala Harris for supporting government funded sex-change operations, no reasonable person tried to claim that it was mainly about budgeting and economic issues. It was obviously an attack on her support for gender ideology.

I realize that partisan hacks on the Republican side of things argued that the ad was really about "priorities," but come on.

Of course it was an attack on her support of gender ideology. Her views were insane and should be criticized. And she lost in part for having insane views.

Of course it was an attack on her support of gender ideology. Her views were insane and should be criticized. And she lost in part for having insane views.

Of course I agree with this 100%. My only point is that there were one or more Republican partisans who (presumably for strategic partisan reasons) went on the news and implied that the ad was really about budgetary priorities. Similar to the way in which one or more posters here are apparently trying to imply that the campaign ad here is really about budgetary priorities and isn't just "hating on Israel" as you put it.

Except here the sums are colossal as opposed to the amounts going to trans your kids.

Medicare at least helps Americans. America fighting Israel’s war only helps Israel afford their own universal healthcare plan. We are effectively spending our own taxes and dying so that Israelis 6,700 miles away enjoy free healthcare. It would be inappropriate for Americans not to hate this arrangement. This is essentially what the emotion of hatred is for, the neutralization of worthless costs to us:

hatred produces behaviors functionally designed to neutralize targets costly to the hater

I mean, it is instrumentally useful to hate either Israel or our arrangement with Israel so that we can stop (transitively) funding their healthcare system and instead fund our own healthcare system, if that’s what voters want us to do. (I don’t really know how I feel about healthcare spending personally, though).

Medicare at least helps Americans.

This is absolutely not a free claim. Every other leftist advancement into healthcare to "help" Americans has made the industry worse. I'd rather not spend money on Israel, but that's functionally benign compared to anything a figure like El Sayed would do with the money.

We spend tons of our money on tons of stupid things that benefits others. If the goal was to end foreign aide, I’m behind it. But it never is—it’s always just “end giving money to Israel” because people hate Jews.

Based on the official government numbers at ForeignAssistance.gov, about half (more under Trump I, less under Biden) of the total US aid spend (excluding extraordinary support to Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion) was either aid to Israel or aid to Egypt and Jordan which is basically Danegeld paid on behalf of Israel. I don't know how this changes as a result of Trump's cuts to USAID, but I suspect the proportion is even higher now.

Except wartime Ukraine, Israel is by far the largest single recipient of US aid, despite its small population and first-world standard of living.

So "stop funding Israel" and "end foreign aid" are kind of the same cause, just spun to appeal to different audiences.

Except wartime Ukraine, Israel is by far the largest single recipient of US aid, despite its small population and first-world standard of living.

Does this count for inflation? I have a hard time believing Israel or Ukraine got anything close to what the Soviets got in WWII. Ford was the most common make of truck in the USSR until like the 1970s just from the lend-lease.

Misleading post. First, you except Ukraine treating that as extraordinary). But there is always something extraordinary. Before Ukraine there was Afghanistan and Iraq.

Second, aid to Egypt and Jordan might benefit the Israel but please bifurcate.

Third, the very same people demand more aid for Ukraine and were convulsing over shutting down USAID.

So no, their claim wasn’t about shutting aid down generally—just specifically.

Misleading post. First, you except Ukraine treating that as extraordinary). But there is always something extraordinary. Before Ukraine there was Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, the interesting here is the no matter what extraordinary circumstances are going on, Israel is top 2 receiver of foreign aid as far back as the data shows

Based on the official government numbers at ForeignAssistance.gov, about half (more under Trump I, less under Biden) of the total US aid spend (excluding extraordinary support to Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion) was either aid to Israel or aid to Egypt and Jordan which is basically Danegeld paid on behalf of Israel. I don't know how this changes as a result of Trump's cuts to USAID, but I suspect the proportion is even higher now.

Except wartime Ukraine, Israel is by far the largest single recipient of US aid, despite its small population and first-world standard of living.

So "stop funding Israel" and "end foreign aid" are kind of the same cause, just spun to appeal to different audiences.

Well here's a thought experiment:

Suppose that the US stopped military funding to Israel but instead put a military presence there as there is with South Korea; Bahrain; Germany; Saudi Arabia; the UK; and so on. Would people who object to US spending on Israel withdraw their objections? I strongly doubt it, which suggests "The US spends a large percentage of military aid on Israel" isn't the real objection.

Sure, let's have US cut Israeli military aid to 0 and have Israel give the US a few hundred hectares of Israeli land, plus qualified immunity for its soldiers raping Israeli girls when out on the town. You'll champion this with your fellow countrymen, right?

If someone was giving my money freely away to Jews, yeah; I’d hate them too. I don’t think they’ve figured out that part yet.

Money is being freely given to tons of people. But seemingly only hatred is directed towards Jews.

Yes, billions of dollars are being given to my cause, but look, those other guys are getting thousands too. Checkmate anti-zionists!

If the goal was to end foreign aide, I’m behind it. But it never is

Tom Massie supported ending all foreign aid and they spent ~30 million on having him replaced and removed.

Regardless, even if they don't, who cares? Why do supporters of this parasitic nation always engage in petty whataboutism instead of saying "Well, I'd rather we end all foreign aid but we can start with Israel"?

This is why nothing can get cut. You have to start with something, and what that is reveals the ugliness of your true priorities. So whatever cooperation you'd need to get the ball rolling is poisoned from the jump.

Foreign aid: Oh, so you hate Jews

Social security: Oh, so you hate grandma

....

Tom Massie supported ending all foreign aid and they spent ~30 million on having him replaced and removed.

Tom also turned into a Epstein clown. Generational downfall, from one of my favorite congressmen into a retarded meme. Ron Paul to MTG pipeline was certainly one of the choices of all time.

Regardless, even if they don't, who cares? Why do supporters of this parasitic nation always engage in petty whataboutism instead of saying "Well, I'd rather we end all foreign aid but we can start with Israel"?

Can we get a plan for that that doesn't involve electing malevolent leftist-Islamists who hate me, my country, and my children?

Well, do you want the Epstein clown or the guy who hates you, your country and your children.

Easy choice as far as I can tell.

Conveniently, those were different elections so I could root for them both to lose. In a head-to-head, I'd have easily picked Massie over El Sayed.

Why do supporters of this [] nation always engage in petty whataboutism instead of saying "Well, I'd rather we end all foreign aid but we can start with Israel"?

I think the answer is that these efforts are motivated primarily by Jew-hatred rather than the desire to save money.

In any event, one can flip the question around: If you just want to save money, and you aren't motivated by Jew-hatred, why not demonstrate your good faith by campaigning to end US spending on a few other things? I mean, certainly people have good reason to suspect your motivations.

Ackshually you can't cut money for my pet cause until you've proven to my satisfaction that you care about saving money more than you care about hurting my cause. The USAID stuff? Sorry, doesn't count. The ACA cuts? Doesn't cut it for me boss. Keep trying. But remember, you cut my stuff last, after I'm satisfied you're not in this just cuz you hate me.

"suspect your motivations"

This is how you ended up with woke mindreading and prior to that, runaway prog accusations of "dog-whistling"

"suspect your motivations"

This is how you ended up with woke mindreading and prior to that, runaway prog accusations of "dog-whistling"

I'm not sure what you mean by "woke mindreading," but in any event, when someone proposes a change to public policy, it's entirely reasonable (in my opinion) to consider the motivations behind the proposal. And if it seems that the proposal is not being made in good faith, to take that into account in deciding whether to support or oppose that proposal.

Do you disagree?

I support Massie aims and find AIPACs attacks against Masse disingenuous since Massie’s support was to cut spending on pretty much everything.

But most people who complain about Israeli funding are at the same time demanding more and more funding for Ukraine. It doesn’t make you think “maybe it really isn’t about aid?”

The ad explicitly claims that Americans cannot afford groceries because the money is being set aside to kill Palestinians, not Iranians, so I question the relevance of the war in Iran.

There is a direct line between supporting Israelis killing Palestinians and Americans killing Iranians on Israel's behalf. It never stops with giving the mouse a cookie.

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