site banner
PaperclipPerfector  23d ago (text post)   29829 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.

In terms of feasibility, it's asserted that the process for mass deportations is relatively easy. He uses the analogy of the 2.9 million Americans who fly every day, stating that if even 1% of them were illegal immigrants heading home, the U.S. could deport 10 million people annually.

Does he think the United States government has, by itself, the capacity to replicate 1% of all intra-country flight capacity? To multiple different countries around the world? To do this every day for a year? I am skeptical.

More importantly, the US already has a giant list of people set to be deported: the Department of Justice currently has 1.5 million final deportation orders, meaning there are over 1.5 million illegal immigrants who have already been through the necessary administrative process and could be immediately deported if apprehended.

I feel like "if apprehended" is doing a ton of work. Is this a case where ICE already knows where these people are and needs to pick them up? Or does it need to go find them too? That may not be a trivial step!

Further, the government is apparently releasing 90% of the illegal immigrants it arrests and many of those released fail to attend their hearings, and a large percentage do not comply with final deportation orders.

Is the author under the impression there are ICE facilities with the capacity to hold millions of people just standing around empty? What is the alternative to release in the case where you physically cannot hold someone?

This entire charade is absurd, of course. The executive branch is arguing with the executive branch about whether the executive branch can enforce the law!

This argument is what is absurd. I am under the impression it is common for executive agencies to consult with, say, the DoJ or in-house lawyers about whether some course of action is lawful. The way our system does not work is "I am the executive branch, therefore everything I do is legal." It is totally normal and understandable for particular executive agencies to be unsure about whether doing something is lawful and consult with a more expert agency or entity about whether it is.

He also thinks that immigration judges can make decisions a lot faster. There are approximately 700 immigration judges now, but if that were scaled down to about 100 super efficient judges who can process up to 80 cases a day, you'd meet a goal of 3,000 deportations per day, resulting in clearing about 6 million immigration cases after four years.

As @Lizzardspawn says the notion that a judge is making an individualized and informed decision about whether someone is a legitimate asylum seeker in 6 minutes (assuming an 8hr work day) is farcical. Just dispense with the hearings altogether.

If such plans were to be implemented, they would face serious legal challenges, but would Trump abide by whatever rulings the courts, including the Supreme Court, hand down? Thanks to Trump v. United States, the president now has broad immunity for powers granted under Article II, which include commanding the military, issuing pardons, vetoing legislation, overseeing foreign relations, and managing immigration. It is obvious from the first two months that the administration believes that the president has broad Article II powers; it is reasonable to think that expedited removal of millions of people from the country, even those with pending asylum claim, is a power that the administration believes it has and that such actions are immune from prosecution, which would mean they can proceed in the face of injunctions issued by federal courts.

Let's be clear, Trump v. United States stands for the proposition that the president is immune to certain kinds of criminal prosecution for certain kinds of actions. There is no implication that it extends to other executive branch officials nor that the president or those officials are immune from other kinds of sanction by the courts.

the notion that a judge is making an individualized and informed decision about whether someone is a legitimate asylum seeker in 6 minutes (assuming an 8hr work day) is farcical. Just dispense with the hearings altogether.

My understanding is that the hearing is mandated by statute, but turning it into a joke wouldn't necessarily violate that statute.

Does he think the United States government has, by itself, the capacity to replicate 1% of all intra-country flight capacity? To multiple different countries around the world? To do this every day for a year? I am skeptical.

The US government has contracts with commercial airlines as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to support DOD needs in emergencies, presumably in advance of their other customers.

I don't think this would be popular, but the mechanism at least exists.

You really don't want to burn the relationship you have with the commercial airlines, one that would be useful in a real emergency, by trying to browbeat them into supporting this. The optics are terrible.

Is the author under the impression there are ICE facilities with the capacity to hold millions of people just standing around empty?

Remember Jade Helm and the FEMA detention centers?

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