site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20919 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

So why was an ms13 gang member being legally shielded from deportation again? What system did that, and why is it legitimate?

an ms13 gang member

The alien claims that the govt. has presented no evidence that he's a member of any gang at all, let alone MS-13 in particular.

why was an [illegal alien] being legally shielded from deportation

The alien claims: in his hometown he was targeted by a gang; the persecution persisted even after his family moved three times (though only a 15-minute drive away each time); and sending the alien out of the country was the family's last resort. The immigration pseudo-judge believed that claim and granted withholding of removal. The govt. did not appeal that determination.

The alien claims that the govt. has presented no evidence that he's a member of any gang at all, let alone MS-13 in particular.

How about we check for ourselves?

Here is the specific claim from Abrego Garcia v. Noem linked by OP:

'19. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is not a member of or has no affiliation with Tren de Aragua, MS-13, or any other criminal or street gang. Although he has been accused of general “gang affiliation,” the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded accusation.

Here is what the government says in their DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM linked by OP:

During a bond hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) stated that a confidential informant had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member of the criminal gang MS-13. Id. ¶ 31. Bond was denied. See id. ¶¶ 34, 39; see also IJ Order, infra Ex. A, at 2–3 (finding that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community); BIA Opinion, infra Ex. B, at 1–2 (adopting and affirming IJ Order, specifically finding no clear error in its dangerousness finding).

...

Abrego Garcia is barred from disputing that, as a member of the criminal gang MS-13, he is a danger to the community. This factual finding was made in his bond proceedings before the agency, IJ Order 2–3, and he appealed that finding to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed it as not clearly erroneous, BIA Opinion 1–2. Because he did not seek further review of the Board’s decision, that decision is a final judgment precluding relitigation of the issues it resolved.

So the government has presented evidence that Garcia was in a gang (a confidential informant). And the court has found that he was in fact a gang member. And when Garcia appealed that finding, the finding was affirmed. Which he did not again appeal.

Seems... not ideal... that people can just make stuff up in the "FACTS" section of court documents. Why are people allowed to claim things as "FACTS" that clearly aren't facts? The government either has or has not presented evidence that Garcia is in a gang. Both can't be true, and both sides are claiming that they did/did not provide evidence. Someone's "FACTS" are not actually factual.

This clearly does not meet the standards of a criminal trial in any civilized country, including the US. He did not get to face and cross-examine his accuser.

Given that what is at stake here is El Salvador locking him up long-term, I feel it is reasonable to require similar standards of evidence to a criminal trial.

I would maybe agree with your feelings if Garcia made any effort to come here legally. But he did not. He chose to lie and cheat his way in. So I feel it is reasonable to deport him, regardless of the outcome.

The government presented evidence that he was in a gang and took advantage of an extremely lenient (towards the government) of review ("not clearly erroneous") to prevent him from challenging it. This actually makes me more disposed to believe he isn't a gang member, since he got procedurally screwed out of challenging the claim.

It makes sense when you watch the Twitter/Cable News discourse. The baseless accusation that the government presented no evidence is not in the documentation so that it can hold up in court. It's there so that talking heads on Twitter and CNN can quote those documents angrily and selectively. It's laundering talking points through legal filings.

I understand why it was done by Garcia's lawyer. But before I looked into it I would have assumed that its against the rules to lie to judges in the lawsuits (or whatever it was) you file. The claim is that:

the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded accusation.

Which clearly is not true. They did have evidence. Maybe it was really weak evidence, I don't know, but it was evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but can you really just get away with blatantly lying like that?

Could be an exact-words thing. The informant is anonymous and his exact words haven't been made public. Therefore the U.S. government has not produced the evidence, though it claims to possess it.

though only a 15-minute drive

For context, based on a recent visit, 20mph is a good speed in El Salvador.

The IJ found that he faced a likelihood of being tortured if returned to El Salvador and so could not be deported there as part of the US agreement on the UN Convention Against Torture.

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