site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   29671 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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.

The court order is a red herring. Trump using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans is illegal because the predicate condition of the act, “whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,” is not satisfied. Is the assertion that the Venezuelan government is behind the Aurora apartment takeovers?

It's the perogative of the executive to conduct foreign affairs, with explicit carveouts to Congress for the approval of treaties, appointment of ambassadors, and declarations of war.

For example, the normalization of diplomatic relations with China was executive action, both by Nixon and Carter.

So it is within the President's authority to say "I recognize Tren de Aragua as a competing government engaged in civil war against the internationally recognized government of Venezuala. And I further assert that they are sending agents to invade our territory."

I suppose this would also open up to all of the gang members to prosecution under FARA.

The classic definition is that government has a monopoly on the use of force. I think it is fair to describe these gangs as having that monopoly in areas they control and trying to extend that into areas of the US.

Is it obvious? No but it isn’t crazy and again not sure justiciable.

These are “or” statements, and the operative one is “predatory incursion” - which you call bad behavior. It is also backed by the actions of the Venezuelan state facilitating the movement of these gang members to the U.S.

I'm skeptical, but if it turns out that Tren de Aragua is taking instructions from the Venezuelan government, which is not in fact impossible, he's got a case.

Was it not an invasion when Belarus flew in millions of foreigners and dropped them off right at the EU border? Smells like an invasion to me.

What about the prisons and asylums that Maduro allegedly emptied for the express purpose of sending those people to the US? And the forign governments that paid (with receipts) millions of dollars for bus tickets, guides, free food, phones, and maps to transport millions of people directly to the US border?

That is not what most people would call "invasion", no. It's bad behavior, but just because someone acts like a jerk in ways which involve people arriving in a country does not make it invasion.

I mean, at some point, it is an invasion. We’re seeing them act to get millions of people across the borders, in some cases releasing them from prisons, and the resulting mess is causing material harm to us by draining our resources and creating chaos in our streets as many of them turn to gang activity to support themselves. At what point does the USA get to call it an invasion?

I get that there are technicalities in the law. Gang syndicates are not technically a country, even if they can take control over parts of their home country. It’s not technically an invasion because they’re not in the military and don’t have direct orders from the home country to do this. But it has the same kinds of effects. We’re spending ourselves broke feeding this horde, and they’re causing crime rates to go up and filling our streets with drugs. But all good, they don’t have official orders.

No, it doesn't become an invasion just because it has bad effects on us. Words mean things, and an invasion isn't "lots of people arrive here and it causes problems". There's more to it than that (intent is a big one, and imo unarmed civilians don't qualify as an invasion either).

Trying to redefine "invasion" in this way is no different than when leftists try to redefine "violence" to include things they don't like. It's not reasonable, in either direction, to redefine words just because you feel strongly that something is bad.

I mean the issue here is that Theres so much hanging on the verbiage that I think there are gaping holes in our ability to protect ourselves. There are lots of non-state actors who would love to be able to disrupt the United States. And the loophole as I understand it is that as long as tge entity sending people into the country is not a legal state and the people sent are not legal members of a military organization, that there’s basically nothing we can do. They can flood the streets with drugs, commit crimes, possibly even commit terrorist acts, and there’s no way to do anything.

Keep in mind that non-state actors can be pretty powerful. ISIL never officially had a state, but it had effective control of a good chunk of MENA and carried out pretty horrific executions. Al-qaida goes without saying. Sinhola syndicate, MS-13. These groups have effective leadership and often control territory.

I think to tie the government’s hands in dealing with gangs that have effective control over their countries of origin through corruption and outright violence just means that their problems are going to end up here. Problems like drug cartels being able to control government officials (Plata o Plumba — silver (a bribe) or lead (aka killing you or your family)) are common occurrences in South America. If the people who can do that in El Salvador do so American cities, that’s not a minor issue.

It was deliberate, specific, and intentional. When Belarus flew in planeloads of people from around the world, bussed them directly to the border, and ordered them to go forth, they were sending invaders into Europe. These people were recruited, paid for, and ordered to invade Europe at the command of Lukashenko and Putin.

How can you defend this despot's invasion just because these people aren't technically enlisted in the Belarusian armed forces?

Maybe "Infestation" would be closer to the intended meaning?

Words mean things and you have adopted a non-standard understanding of invasion that lacks common use meanings.

It is not I who is using the word in a nonstandard way, friend. But if you wish to believe that I can't stop you.

Who gets to make that determination? Is that determination judicable or is it a matter of appreciation by the President?

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