site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   32133 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Secondly, What are these 'chores' and how is there a debate about whether it was work or not? How does ICE even know that said 'chores' even happened?

I'm going to guess she was doing au pair or nannying work. If she didn't go through an agency and wasn't approved, then that's a no-no. It could be that the host family tried to claim the wages they were paying her as expenses, or some other thing that triggered "hey this person is working on a tourist visa". Reading the family's claims, I'd bet that back in 2023 she did get in to work legally as an au pair (the host family in San Francisco) and this time round she thought she knew the ropes and could do it without going through an agency, as she wanted to work while on a tourist visa (after all, if you're just visiting as a tourist, why would you need to research about what does and doesn't count as work?):

Did she break the rules of the ESTA?

The ESTA is for tourists only. For work or study a specific visa is required. Becky did a lot of research before she went and what she had planned was classed as tourism. This was accepted when she entered the US on 7th January. It was also accepted in 2023 when she spent two weeks in San Francisco, with a host family. On the 26th February, US border officers suddenly decided staying with host families and joining in with household chores was now classed as work. Our US Immigration Lawyer said they got their definition of work wrong.

This is how most illegals from these parts end up in the USA; go on a tourist visa, find a job, deliberately over-stay and hope you won't be picked up. She was just unlucky (or dumb).

Ciara, who arrived in the U.S. before President Trump took office, said she was on a J-1 visa, which allows for educational and cultural exchange, but working illegally on the side. "There is a bit of a safety net" for Irish people in the hospitality industry, she said.

...But immigration attorneys have told CBS News that it would be naive for Irish undocumented people to believe that they may be immune to deportation.

"When Irish people come here, they come on what we call the visa waiver program, so that allows them to come to the United States without going to the consulate in Dublin, and they can come in for 90 days and stay for 90 days, and so most of them [who are undocumented] overstay," John Foley, a Boston-based immigration attorney told CBS News.

I'm surprised no-one has pointed out that if ICE are going after white European illegals, then the Trump directive can't be called racist 😁

I think it was Au Pair work too; eg chores, babysitting in exchange for under the counter 'pocket money', room & board and cultural exchange. Western governments have traditionally turned a blind eye to this sort of thing for a while, to the point were people doing it expect that it won't be targeted. Unfortunately for them, the current political climate happened.

Also, I agree with others that both: A - the rejection from Canada triggered additional US BCP scrutiny; and B - there is a possibility that either her artist work or political views didn't work in her favor.

Something that isn't really focused on is why Canada rejected her for 'au pair' work. Details are (deliberately) vague.

She seems to have tried to cross the border on an American tourist visa, got told "no you need one specifically for Canada" and was sent back, and maybe that triggered ICE as looking like "someone trying to enter US from Canada without proper paperwork".

I could then see her getting questioned about how she was supporting herself, giving an answer about working for host family/families, and then oops but you're not here on an au pair visa, you're here as a tourist, and that sets the ball rolling.

But so far we're only getting her family's side of the story, and of course they're not going to say "yeah actually she intended to overstay her visa and be there as an illegal", so who knows what the real story was? Maybe when she came as a tourist, she was also trying to scout work as a comic artist there and that's what got her in trouble also, if she was selling art or doing commissions or looking for freelance work from publishers.

Lots of things could be behind the scenes, we don't have all the information yet.

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