site banner
PaperclipPerfector  27d ago (text post)   29876 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.

It is as fundamental as constitutional disputes get. Either legal immigrants enjoy the rights that the Constitution grants to "persons" (as opposed to "citizens of the United States") or they do not.

They absolutely do. Even illegal immigrants get those rights -- you can't go around subjecting them to cruel punishments!

because the President has the right to grab any non-citizen they want and ship them off to a foreign prison without meaningful judicial review.

I think there is going to be a compromise where there is some judicial review, that's what I wrote!

But those on the left have to understand that the process due here is not going to be some unlimited thing. It's going to be in line with what the courts ended up with after the Supreme Court laid out Boumediene, Padilla and Rasul and so forth.

Can the administration circumvent court processes (including habeas corpus) by flying detainees out of the country to a foreign prison before the judge has time to finalise an order?

Ultimately I think this is going to go in your favor. Detainees are going to have a probable cause hearing in which they can assert citizenship or other lawful status.

What is the procedure for judicial review of an executive policy which may be facially illegal and cannot or should not be litigated piecemeal by individual litigants with standing?

That's a normative judgment for which there is voluminous discussion. I don't necessarily disagree, but it's hardly an obvious claim.

They absolutely do. Even illegal immigrants get those rights -- you can't go around subjecting them to cruel punishments!

Given that Trump and Bukele are publicly boasting about the tough conditions in Salvadorean prisons (which would be dubiously legal in the US under current 8th amendment jurisprudence), Trump is unaplogetically doing just that by proxy.

I agree he shouldn't be. That is why I say this case is important - because Trump thinks that he has found a legal blackhole that nullifies the rights of foreigners living in the US, and there is a reasonable chance that he either wins on the merits when the case gets to SCOTUS or successfully ignores an adverse court ruling.

Munaf controls though.

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