site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   24161 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.

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.

The US occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan didn't make America a pariah. Partly because the US was very strong but also because abuses were relatively limited. A little torture in Abu Ghraib didn't help with anything. But at least the US punished some of those involved, it wasn't effectively state sanctioned.

The issue is that the Israelis are structurally incapable of running a reasonably effective occupation regime. Hamas didn't force Israeli politicians to on-camera justify raping prisoners with metal rods, that was an own goal. Hamas wasn't behind Israeli having a grass-roots riot against military bases when soldiers were arrested for raping prisoners. Israelis hate Palestinians, there's a prominent religious/nationalist subsection that likes bulldozing their homes, shooting them, persecuting them. And they get off in court, the legal system can't/won't stop them.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/

The bombing campaign isn't exactly humanitarian either. Russia's been bombing Ukraine aggressively and killed about 1/6 the civilians despite fighting for much longer. It was Israeli generals who came up with the Dahiya doctrine of total destruction to punish civilians for supporting Israel's enemies. They deployed this in Lebanon and Gaza. The whole point is that it is supposed to kill, dehouse and wreck.

Why should the US be subsidizing or supporting this? How does it benefit America in any way to be blowing up Gaza or Lebanon? If Israel wants to do this, they should handle it by themselves. Rwanda's been invading the Congo, should the US join in and sponsor Rwandan empire-building? No, it makes zero sense to sponsor the campaigns of other countries.

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