site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   27436 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is just might makes right, which as I said:

On the one hand, the might-makes-right people say that the state is self-justifying. It exists, it has might, therefore obey it, end of discussion. This is unsatisfying in that it essentially dodges the topic of discussion. As such it is not really a valid answer to the question of legitimacy; rather it implicitly denies that there is any question to be had at all. Might makes right might be a good starting point for a science of state, which investigates how, in human history, states have emerged and become mighty, but it is inappropriate for the normative question that is the question of legitimacy (what type of state should there be?).

This is just might makes right

ChadYes.jpg/alwayshasbeenastronauts.png

Ok so you support the Holocaust as a ChadYes moment?

You are mixing "legitimate" states with supporting the actions of those states. Nazi Germany was a real state. It performed bad actions that I don't support.

The state condemns a man by a single action, so likewise I judge a state's legitimacy by even a single action. So said the Son of Man:

Marcion 15.9 « And do not judge, so that you will not be judged. And do not condemn, so that you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. » 16.5-6 « It is not possible that a good tree bears bad fruit and neither that a bad tree bears good fruit. For each tree will be known by its own fruit. For from thistles no figs are gathered, and from a brier no grapes are picked. »

The state condemns a man by a single action, so likewise I judge a state's legitimacy by even a single action.

If that is what you do, then no state is legitimate and it is misleading to focus on Israel as not being legitimate.

Yes, it was misleading. I did not know how misleading it would be, because I did not know so many people were that attached to it here. Sorry.

Not really. Industrial extermination of your own citizens is historically anomalous compared to conquest. Also, might did make right, because they lost to the Allies.

Although the Nazis did engage in industrial extermination of their own citizens, it was a sideshow - only about 200k Holocaust victims came from Germany proper. The largest groups killed were Polish and Ukrainian Jews.

In other words, the Holocaust was mostly a massacre of conquered populations - something which you suggest is a normal incident of might-makes-right.

I'm not getting it here. The state, legitimate according to you, decreed they are not citizens, which is of course the right of whoever happens to have might, according to you. Citizenship is given by the state, likewise it is taken away, it is not really relevant when might makes right. And, though the Reich lost its might, it seems to have had more to do with its oil reserves and food supply and less to do with putting the Jews in camps. So I'm not following your reasoning here, during the Holocaust, the Reich had might, so you must admit, according to your theory, that it had right.

Look, there's always one real pope, the other one was the anti-pope all along, you can tell by how one of them won and the other didn't.

I know that saying "Sucks to suck, dude" when asked for justice comes off as flippant and unfair, because it often is.

The way to apply might-makes-right/sucks-to-suck arguments that's fair is when the person demanding justice had previously been using might-makes-right. You don't get to start a war with the intention of winning it through force, then, when defeated by force, whine about how force is illegitimate, something-something-international-law, something-something colonialism.

Arabs only discovered international law, war crimes, indigenous rights, and exploiting the emotional incontinence of westerners after losing.

Look, there's always one real pope, the other one was the anti-pope all along, you can tell by how one of them won and the other didn't.

No because might makes right is false. One theology is clearer truer than the other.

I know that saying "Sucks to suck, dude" when asked for justice comes off as flippant and unfair, because it often is.

I think it's relatively uncharitable to talk to me like this. Of course I have thought extensively about how the world is unfair. What do you think the post is even about? It's not that I have an ego problem with you talking down to me, but that it's boring, and I am here for good discussions. So it is just disappointing to have to point out to people that I am in fact not Patrick Star. It wastes time that I wish were amazing discussion instead.

One theology is clearer truer than the other.

Right, and you can tell which one is true-er because the pope said it. The pope is the pope because he defeated the anti-pope.

Okay, but you can at least inhabit a perspective where one of them is more correct than the other, right? Yes, the interpretation of the winner tends to win out in practice because the winner can apply power to make it so, but that doesn't actually make him correct any more than the Chinese emperor can turn a deer into a horse.

Disregarding all the non-arbitrary justifications and then pointing out the remaining ones are arbitrary is not the win it seems to be.

That is not what's happening. It's more like I want to ask what color an object is, or should be painted to be, but many people can't see color, or don't want to, and try to bring the discussion back to shape. It basically just disturbs the discussion.

You're just looking at it wrong. Even your example of a democratic process arising "legitimacy" is still fundamentally built upon force and coercion. When some group within the state does not agree to be governed under the state's laws you get an escalating stream of procedures and apparatchiks with guns and jackboots on the other end making it so.

You're reading me backwards for some reason. I pointed this out, but you're saying it like you're correcting me:

a democratic process arising "legitimacy" is still fundamentally built upon force and coercion.

But I wrote:

Now on the other hand the democratists say that the state is justified when it is popular. But why should that be? If you assume, empirically, that people have different levels of moral aptitude, then popularity immediately appears to be a formula to craft a wicked state. The only deeper justification is that popularity probably correlates with mightiness. But this is just a thin veneer over the first position.

This is just might makes right

I agree, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that "might makes right" is difficult to get away from.

So for example, if I understand your post correctly, you incorrectly implied that there had been an Arab state in Palestine immediately before the founding of Jewish Israel. In reality, the land had been under control of the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered the area previously from someone else. Who conquered it from someone else. And so on back to the Arab conquerors. Who conquered the area from someone else. And so on.

So yes, there was an Arab state there at one point. And countless others as well.

If you point to one state (or one group of people) as being the legitimate owner of an area, you are implicitly endorsing "might makes right" -- at least in the Middle East, since all of the land there has been repeatedly invaded and conquered countless times.

Even if the Arab state had been in control of Palestine immediately prior to the founding of Israel, it's difficult to see how this makes a difference. Because that Arab state would have been established the same way as any other state in the area -- conquest.

So for example, if I understand your post correctly, you incorrectly implied that there had been an Arab state in Palestine immediately before the founding of Jewish Israel.

This is not central to the post. Central to the post is the moral measurement of state.

In reality, the land had been under control of the Ottoman Empire, which had conquered the area previously from someone else. Who conquered it from someone else. And so on back to the Arab conquerors. Who conquered the area from someone else. And so on.

Yep, I assume everyone over the age of 12 knows that in history, people conquer other peoples. Have you read about the Jews and the Canaanites?

If you point to one state (or one group of people) as being the legitimate owner of an area, you are implicitly endorsing "might makes right" -- at least in the Middle East, since all of the land there has been repeatedly invaded and conquered countless times.

Good thing I didn't say the Muslims were entitled to it. I said it was a waste to take it from them merely to establish Israel.

It's like you really want to have this mundane argument that exists within the bounds of what a politician might say about Israel, in a democracy, but you're missing that I want to have a higher argument about the moral measurement of states.

Yep, I assume everyone over the age of 12 knows that in history, people conquer other peoples. Have you read about the Jews and the Canaanites?

Citation needed.

Ive also seen arabs argue that there never were Jews in Israel in the first place. Jews apparently sprung up independently in several places then all converged on Israel because they just like bullying Palestinians that much.

It's called the Khazar hypothesis and it's fairly common albeit fringe.

Good thing I didn't say the Muslims were entitled to it. I said it was a waste to take it from them merely to establish Israel.

I disagree with the phrase "take it from them," since it presupposes that a particular group owns an area and you haven't offered any evidence or argument which establishes such ownership. You just assume it.

But even putting that aside, you seem to be saying that one state of affairs (Muslim control of Palestine) was morally preferable to another state of affairs (Jewish control of Palestine). Do I misunderstand you? If I do, what exactly was being "wasted" by the foundation of Israel?

Religious makeup of Mandatory Palestine, per the 1922 census (total population 757,182):

Religion Population Share
Muslims 590,890 78.0%
Jews 83,794 11.1%
Christians 73,024 9.6%
Druze 7,028 0.9%
Sikhs 408 0.05%
Baháʼís 265 0.03%
Samaritans 163 0.02%
Metawalis 156 0.02%

Thanks for posting this. Probably it's worth noting that in 1922, British Mandatory Palestine was far far bigger than 1948 Israel. It included what is now Jordan; Gaza; and J & S.

That being said, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that due to the Muslim super-majority in British Mandatory Palestine, the entire Mandate belonged to Muslims in some sense, even areas which had been predominantly Jewish?

Are you saying that Muslim control of the entire Mandate area was preferable to any other state of affairs, such as the existence of a Jewish state on a modest percentage of the Mandate area with the rest of the Mandate being under Arab (or Muslim) control?

Probably it's worth noting that in 1922, British Mandatory Palestine was far far bigger than 1948 Israel. It included what is now Jordan; Gaza; and J & S.

The 1922 census did not cover Transjordan at all, since it was run separately as an emirate under Abdullah from 1921. So the figures are for the area west of the Jordan, roughly today's Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, which is only slightly larger than Israel. Within that area, Jews were about one in nine when Ottoman rule ended.

The 1922 census did not cover Transjordan at all

Thanks for pointing it out. In any event, your figures contradict your claim that the area was "crowded Muslim land" at the time. 757,000 is about 7 percent of the current population of Israel.

I'm still not sure what your point is though.

Are you saying that due to the Muslim super-majority in British Mandatory Palestine, the entire Mandate belonged to Muslims in some sense, even areas which had been predominantly Jewish?

Are you saying that Muslim control of the entire Mandate area was preferable to any other state of affairs, such as the existence of a Jewish state on a modest percentage of the Mandate area with the rest of the Mandate being under Arab (or Muslim) control?

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