site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 2025

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.

I think you have this backwards. If Eric Adams goes down, it's a reasonable bet the next Mayor of New York will be uncooperative with immigration enforcement. He's not being rewarded for abandoning his duty, he's being extorted into doing his duty because the Feds have dirt on him. If there was no dirt on him then the Feds wouldn't have any leverage.

If it was the continuous policy of NYC to cooperate with immigration enforcement, then the entire bargaining chip wouldn't be valuable because the next mayor would just continue the policy. Bondi would have no need to do anything because she would already get what is her due anyway.

[ I also don't quite see this as him being extorted into it. He's obviously very clearly guilty of the charges against him, and so it's more like he's cashing it in to have those charges go away. If the charges had been baseless, then I would agree with the characterization. The baseline matters. ]

That's what I mean about the game theory of it -- it pays for the leader of the locality not to do what they are supposed to do. The longer they don't do it, the better and more valuable the leverage, it seems.

what is her due anyway.

This is totally normal tension between state and federal governments, she isn't due anything. If New York is acting illegally, that should be resolved through the courts directly, not by using criminal charges as a bargaining chip. If they aren't, there's nothing she can, or should, do about it.

I think this is far beyond the line of Federalism. NY doesn't have to assist Bondi or Homan, but they cannot prevent the Feds from accessing Rikers or intentionally obstruct them. And yes, I think the courts should forcefully assert it but it's also the purview of the Executive to stand up for its prerogatives.

In fact, using it as a bargaining chip is implicitly acknowledging that the State and the City may do so.

NYC is a sanctuary city- noncooperation with immigration enforcement is a continuous policy there.

Edit- misread your comment

The interesting thing is he paid partially in advance; he turned on immigration not only before Trump got into office, but before the charge were laid, giving credence to the Trump administration's claim that the charges (even though likely true) are themselves politically motivated. From a game theory perspective this makes the Trump administration a better bet to co-operate with; they'll pay you back for favorable action even if you don't make a deal in advance.

Of course the other option was he knew he was guilty and so thought he might be able to get favor with Trump while knowing he wouldn’t get favor to his 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