site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31970 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.

have literally no stake in the outcome of the political process in the USA.

I would argue that foreigners have very much a stake in the political process -- they are the ones getting deported, or bombed for that matter. Having no say is different from having no stake.

Also, I do not think that "don't go to big protests" makes a good Schelling fence. There is nothing fundamentally different between going to a protest and having re-tweeted a meme which the regime decides is Not Funny. So what you end up with is that foreigners in the US should behave like people in China. Only it is even worse because with the CCP you at least know beforehand what will likely piss them off, and you can only guess if the next administration will kick you out for having owned a cybertruck, or a bluesky account or being a member of the German AfD or whatever.

If you want naturalized citizens to take part in the political process, training them to keep their head down before they have their citizenship seems obviously counter-productive.

There is nothing fundamentally different between going to a protest and having re-tweeted a meme which the regime decides is Not Funny.

Which administration was it who jailed an American citizen (to the applause of the Serious People Who Worry About Such Things) for sending out a "text to vote" meme? A Man for All Seasons was quoted elsethread; the fact is, the laws have ALREADY been knocked down, and now the Devil has turned tail.

False statements of fact have always enjoyed reduced 1st amendment protection. Black-letter law says that deliberately sharing false information about voting procedures is a crime. There is no "it was a meme" exception in the law, and there shouldn't be.

This was a fairly simple case of "Don't do the crime if you won't do the time."

Free speech doesn't protect YOU PEOPLE because of reasons, but it's a terrible precedent if YOUR GUY does something that impacts OUR free speech. Heard it before. But, as I said, the Devil has now turned tail.

Black letter law -- constitutional, thus higher than the one used -- says "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". There's no exception for "sharing false information about voting procedures" in there, nor should there be. This is exactly a case of someone being convicted for a tweet the regime found to be Not Funny.

Are you saying the 1st amendment means that there shouldn't be laws against perjury, commercial fraud, defamation etc?

Or are you saying that telling lies about voting procedures in order to influence an election is less serious than those things?

I'm saying what I said. Perjury -- the real sort, not the 18 USC 1001 trap -- is easily distinguishable by the fact that you make an oath or affirmation before some sort of official, or are filling out some clearly official document which warns you of perjury. Defamation is generally a civil matter and criminal defamation laws can easily run afoul of the First Amendment as well. Commercial fraud is a harder to distinguish, but once you've reached finding an exception for "text to vote" memes, there's not much left.

If you want naturalized citizens to take part in the political process, training them to keep their head down before they have their citizenship seems obviously counter-productive.

Do we? One of the reasons immigration has been so controversial is by being openly a way for the Left to rig politics by importing paid-up foot soldiers. They were entirely open about this, see “The Emerging Democratic Majority” or Tony Blair’s staffer remarking that the purpose of their immigration policy was to render British conservatism “irrelevant and out of date”.

I think that first-generation immigrants are essentially guests and should refrain from any public criticism of their host - a policy that I follow myself.

Do we? One of the reasons immigration has been so controversial is by being openly a way for the Left to rig politics by importing paid-up foot soldiers.

At the object level, the person this thread is talking about is Asian-American, a demographic that is hardly solidly left.

I think that first-generation immigrants are essentially guests and should refrain from any public criticism of their host - a policy that I follow myself.

If you are invited to the home of a kid (to be clear, in this metaphor, this is the university community) who has an ongoing conflict with their parents, and the kid brings up the topic, do you side with the kid, the parents, or do you try to awkwardly stay neutral saying it's not your place to meddle?

If you are invited to the home of an adult with roommates (with a jointly held lease) who has an ongoing conflict with their other roommates (say, the majority of them), [same question]?

(Up to you to decide which one of these is a closer model of the situation at hand, though the choice would also reveal something about your understanding of nations.)

If you are invited to the home of a kid (to be clear, in this metaphor, this is the university community) who has an ongoing conflict with their parents, and the kid brings up the topic, do you side with the kid, the parents, or do you try to awkwardly stay neutral saying it's not your place to meddle?

If you are invited to the home of an adult with roommates (with a jointly held lease) who has an ongoing conflict with their other roommates (say, the majority of them), [same question]?

I hear both sides out, then answer the case on its merits.

7:4 seems pretty solid

About six-in-ten Asian voters (63%) align with the Democratic Party, while 36% are oriented toward the GOP.

The balance of partisan association among Asian voters has changed little over the last few years.

That rate is the same as Hispanics, but unlike Hispanics the rates for Asians haven't budged:

Among Hispanic voters, about six-in-ten men (61%) and women (60%) associate with the Democrats. Hispanic women voters have become somewhat less Democratic in recent years (down from 74% in 2016).

No movement for decades reads as solid to me. Asians are more solidly Democrat than any race but Black. They are the second-most Democrat race.

In both cases, I would express sympathy and deflect, unless there were strong cofounding factors. I wouldn't feel like it was my place to say more.

If I were asked, specifically, for my opinion then I would give it but I don't think this can be applied to the nation except perhaps for elections.

At the object level, the person this thread is talking about is Asian-American, a demographic that is hardly solidly left.

I thought they are? Perhaps not as ridiculously overwhelmingly left as, say, African-Americans, but still solidly left.

According to PEW party affiliation of Asians is merely 2:1 in favor of the Democrats, I'll leave that up to the reader to decide whether that is "solidly left"

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