site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   33640 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

Of these, I want to look at invading armies in particular. Why are they not subject to jurisdiction?

You can't, under customary international law, prosecute lawful combatants (i.e. enemy soldiers who have a chain of command, wear uniforms etc.) for the normal crimes (murder, arson, unlicensed driving etc.) that they commit in the course of invading your country. I'm not aware of this being documented in any treaty, but it is a very old rule, and it is a background assumption of things like the protection for PoWs in the Geneva Conventions.

Hence invading armies are not subject to the jurisdiction.

So the children of (non-citizen) spies get citizenship?

(Maybe they do, IDK -- the Rosenbergs were Americans, and I don't know of any other famous examples)

Most foreign spies operate under diplomatic cover - rule 1 of Cold War era intrigue is that the Soviet military attache is a spy. So they get expelled rather than prosecuted if caught, and their children don't get citizenship as children of diplomats.

I was thinking of sleeper agents -- these are a thing, right?

The children of the Russian illegals who were caught in 2010 maintain their citizenship. As far as I know, no Soviet illegals in the US were ever caught.

Why would they not (unless they pose as diplomatic staff)?

Most effective spies would enter the US with the approval of the US government (given under false pretense).

If the government can retroactively declare you illegal because you cheated with your immigration paperwork, and this also makes your kids born in the US non-citizens per Trump (and thus illegals in turn), then that would immediately call into question the US citizenship of a lot of people.

I guess expatriating people who only got their citizenship as a means to better spy on you seems reasonable, but denying their kids the right to US citizenship would create a lot more headaches than it solves.

If the government can retroactively declare you illegal because you cheated with your immigration paperwork

Well they can certainly do that:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-1

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/us-citizenship-revoked-bulgarian-man-marriage-fraud-scheme

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1200apD.html

that would immediately call into question the US citizenship of a lot of people.

I think that's the point!

What I was getting at with the spies (vs the soldiers) is that they do get tried and jailed for whatever crimes they commit in a more-or-less normal way -- so they are 'subject to the jurisdiction' in that sense -- but it would seem kind of weird to create more potential spies who actually are citizens this way.

I'm unaware of any real life examples of this, but it seems like the sort of thing that must have happened at some point?

So if some pre-state people, like native americans from outside US territory, came in for a raid, that would not be an "invasion" and children they have on the way would be citizens?

And what about the not-normal crimes? Do others with a partial immunity, such as government officals, also not count as under US jurisdiction?

I would argue that this would simply make the invaders war criminals which can be prosecuted under military law.

However, if the US decided to prosecute them under peacetime law (e.g. because the "invasion" is just a few drunk Canadians which were easily rounded up by the sheriff), then I would argue that birthrate citizenship would also apply.

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