site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   23132 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are we damaging our international relations or putting a stop to low-life's trying to come here take 'Murican (comic book) Jerbs.

If we wanted to write a law saying "you can use a non-work visa to work, as long as the industry or the quantity of work makes it laughable that they're taking someone's job", we could have. I hope the reasons why not to have such a law are obvious.

I think the text of the laws in question largely date from a time with well-defined "work" and "not work" life spaces, but they're hardly unique to the US. If you're a laptop-class worker, can you "check your email" while on vacation somewhere? I can appreciate that there is a line somewhere before your host country should at least expect you to pay income taxes and such, but a small amount of de minimus work seems pretty harmless.

I follow a number of professional artists on social media, and at least once have seen a post lamenting that following the letter of the US tourist visa meant they couldn't paint a canvas, even for fun, while visiting (a high profile makes legal scrutiny more likely to appear too).

On the other hand, I don't have a specific threshold of "reasonableness" in mind. I'm open to hearing ideas, but "no" is at least a clear answer, and I'm fortunate enough to be able to personally leave work at work when I'm on vacation.

Wouldn’t the line be some sort of contractual obligation for some sort of pay? If I’m doing chores to be nice, then there’s no obligation to do so and no expectation of getting anything in return. If she’s watching children and keeping house in return for something— education, shelter, or money, that’s pretty clearly work. Making something you sell is work, making something and giving it away isn’t.

Not an immigration lawyer, but I am fairly certain you can come to US for business purposes on the waiver program. You just can't be paid paid or compensated by US entities for your time and services.

otherwise everyone coming to the US as a conference attendee wouldn't be able to use the visa waiver program

It is worth noting that for short-term travellers the US has "visa waiver business" (VWB) and "visa waiver travel" (VWT) programs. VWB can accept honoraria (montary payment) for giving guest lectures (limited to 5 presentations in a 6 month period). VWT cannot enter the country with the goal of receiving payment, but they can still give guest lectures and accept payment if the honorarium was offered and arranged after they entered the US.

I was under the impression that honoraria were a small deal, maybe $300 for a seminar (the legal limit in Korea), but the University of Washington has procedures to cover honoraria of over $10,000, and host visiting scholars for up to nine days. Maybe I need to get on the professional seminar circuit.

Yeah, this is about how I felt about the tattoo lady too. Charging people money to tattoo them is obviously work, it should not have been permitted.

Then again, I'm kind of a bleeding heart type and so I would probably not throw these folks in an ICE detention center if they agreed to just fly back where they came from. Certainly not for 11 days.

Charging people money to tattoo them is obviously work, it should not have been permitted.

Was she charging people? OP just said she was carrying her gear. I don't see why she should be forbidden from doing it for free, as a hobby, even if she gets paid for it at home. I feel like the line here ought to be "did they get paid", not "were they doing things that other people might get paid for in other circumstances", particularly when it comes to artists.

Sure. That is the applicable standard, but it's not the right posture.

At the same time, the decision has to be made on whether she is to be allowed entry, so we don't know with confidence what she will do after being admitted. Some CBP guy has to, on the balance of available evidence, figure out if she is likely to violate the law or not.

So you're right about the line, but wrong about the tense.

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