site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   18018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 2, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So apparently after 40-some odd years, US military aid to Israel is ending. (Or at least Trump announced he is ending it. Arguably it's a decision for Congress)

In any event, this is interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, even though I am generally pro-Israel I am against US military aid to Israel. With its advanced economy, Israel doesn't really need it, it gives ammunition to various people who like to claim that (AIPAC; the Jewish Lobby; da Jooz; etc.) control everything, and it allows the US to exercise a lot of control over Israeli military spending and sales.

Unfortunately, I am not optimistic that those who harp on the issue of this military aid will dial down their complaints about Israel. It seems to me that the military aid is more of an excuse to attack Israel as opposed to the actual objection.

I would analogize these criticisms to Trump's famous they/them attack ad. Spin doctors may have claimed that the ad was really about budgetary priorities, but it was pretty obvious that in reality, Trump was capitalizing on widespread American opposition to gender ideology.

So I guess my question is this: Among people who complain a lot about US military aid to Israel (and in fact there have been complaints here just in the last week or so), and assuming that the aid is stopped, to what extent will this satisfy them?

I'm not a US citizen (and Germany is not about to follow suit any time soon), but if I were I think I would be about 50% satisfied if this indeed went through (which I highly doubt). The other 50% would be about the US using its political muscle to help Israel against third parties (such as sanctioning ICC judges who prosecute Israeli officials, legally punishing boycott movements, or pressuring other countries against taking actions against it).

If this stopped, again under the hypothetical where I am a US citizen, this would not make me like what they are doing, but it would demote the salience of their business back to the level of dozens of other far-flung regions stuck in a perpetual cycle of bad people making each other's lives miserable.

I'm not a US citizen (and Germany is not about to follow suit any time soon), but if I were I think I would be about 50% satisfied if this indeed went through (which I highly doubt). The other 50% would be about the US using its political muscle to help Israel against third parties (such as sanctioning ICC judges who prosecute Israeli officials, legally punishing boycott movements, or pressuring other countries against taking actions against it).

And do you similarly object to US support of other countries, e.g. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

but it would demote the salience of their business back to the level of dozens of other far-flung regions stuck in a perpetual cycle of bad people making each other's lives miserable.

As a side note, this is a counterproductive misunderstanding (if you believe in mistake theory). There is a saying that if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no more Israel. And in fact, the historical record pretty convincingly shows that this is the case, at least if you are looking at Palestinian Arabs.

As a side note, this is a counterproductive misunderstanding (if you believe in mistake theory). There is a saying that if the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no more Israel. And in fact, the historical record pretty convincingly shows that this is the case, at least if you are looking at Palestinian Arabs.

If you define peace in the ordinary English sense as the absence of war, this is true. But if Israeli demographics mean that the Netanyahu coalition will be in power most of the time going forwards, then Israel is not offering normalcy (reasonably secure property rights, protection from criminal attacks by radical settlers, freedom of movement within sufficiently large contiguous areas to support a viable economy) to the Palestinian population of the West Bank. This is a change since the Oslo era, and it is an interesting but fundamentally unimportant question whether the change is driven by Israeli demographics (in particular, high religious Zionist birth and immigration rates) or by the counterproductive behaviour of Palestinians (mostly not resident in the West Bank) alienating potentially sympathetic Israelis.

But if Israeli demographics mean that the Netanyahu coalition will be in power most of the time going forwards, then Israel is not offering normalcy (reasonably secure property rights, protection from criminal attacks by radical settlers, freedom of movement within sufficiently large contiguous areas to support a viable economy) to the Palestinian population of the West Bank

I disagree with this, but here's a thought experiment: Suppose that (1) the Israelis were offered a deal - total peace but they had to withdraw to the 1948 line and uproot J & S settlers just like they did with settlers in Gaza; and (2) somehow it was a credible offer. Would they take it? Obviously the answer is "yes" given that they accepted much worse deals in the past. So unless you believe that at some point the Israeli mentality fundamentally changed, it seems pretty clear that the saying still holds.

To be sure, there is definitely some element of the Jewish population in Israel which is the mirror image of the Arabs, i.e. they want a greater Israel with no Arabs at all. But it seems pretty clear that this element is not in control.

Suppose that (1) the Israelis were offered a deal - total peace but they had to withdraw to the 1948 line and uproot J & S settlers just like they did with settlers in Gaza; and (2) somehow it was a credible offer. Would they take it? Obviously the answer is "yes" given that they accepted much worse deals in the past.

I don't think the answer is this obvious. If the final (3) would be "and the Palestinians forever forget about their Right of Return to what is now Israel", then I would give the peace a probability of around 25%. If you added (4) "and Israeli Arabs move to Palestine", then I would raise the probability to 33%.

I don't think the answer is this obvious. If the final (3) would be "and the Palestinians forever forget about their [claimed] Right of Return to what is now Israel", then I would give the peace a probability of around 25%. If you added (4) "and Israeli Arabs move to Palestine", then I would raise the probability to 33%.

I'm not sure what you mean by "would give the peace a probability." The hypothetical assumes "total peace." This includes Palestinian Arabs giving up any claims that they have some kind of right to live in Israel.

The probability means the Knesset votes for it.

The probability means the Knesset votes for it.

I strongly disagree. Given that Israel accepted much worse deals in the past, it's reasonable to expect that Israel would jump on this. Unless you can demonstrate that something has changed dramatically in the Israeli mindset.

More comments

I disagree with this, but here's a thought experiment: Suppose that (1) the Israelis were offered a deal - total peace but they had to withdraw to the 1948 line and uproot J & S settlers just like they did with settlers in Gaza; and (2) somehow it was a credible offer. Would they take it? Obviously the answer is "yes" given that they accepted much worse deals in the past. So unless you believe that at some point the Israeli mentality fundamentally changed, it seems pretty clear that the saying still holds.

The whole point I am making is that religious Zionist parties (excluding Likud, which has always had a religious Zionist faction which has become more significant over time) went from 9 Knesset seats in 1992 (when the Rabin government that did Oslo was elected) to 19 in 2026 (if you allocate half of B'Yachad's seats to Naftali Bennet), due to a change in Israeli demographics. Religious Zionists would definitely reject the hypothetical deal you discuss, and Netanyahu built his political career based on opposition to the "worse deals in the past" that Israel accepted, so I suspect most Likudniks would as well. (Netanyahu is one of the Israeli right-wingers who deliberately allowed Hamas to build up its position in Gaza because a stronger Hamas makes a two-state solution less likely, at the cost of a few dead and maimed Israelis).

The whole point I am making is that religious Zionist parties (excluding Likud, which has always had a religious Zionist faction which has become more significant over time) went from 9 Knesset seats in 1992 (when the Rabin government that did Oslo was elected) to 19 in 2026 (if you allocate half of B'Yachad's seats to Naftali Bennet), due to a change in Israeli demographics. Religious Zionists would definitely reject the hypothetical deal you discuss, and Netanyahu built his political career based on opposition to the "worse deals in the past" that Israel accepted, so I suspect most Likudniks would as well.

Well can we agree that if Religious Zionists were calling the shots, then at a minimum they would (1) annex all of area C; (2) restore Jewish settlements to Gaza; and (3) open southern Lebanon to settlements?

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