site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   18744 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.

I had to read several articles about this to really understand

  • he illegally entered the US
  • he applied for asylum, citing danger if he returned to El Salvador
  • a judge denied his asylum request
  • but a judge did sympathize and say he can't be deported back to El Salvador
  • he's still an illegal alien!
  • presumably the US tried to find another place to send him, but couldn't
  • so he remained in the US
  • until they accidentally deported him to El Salvador for thinking he was part of a gang

I had to read several articles about this to really understand

I hate journalists so much. They deliberately lie by omission because of their ideologies (Right wing journos leave things out too).

It shouldn't take so much time to figure out what all these people are arguing about.

more than ever, reading the news is anti-informative

Wait, so he wasn't granted asylum, just a stay of deportation to El Salvador specifically?

If I'm understanding right:

  • He applied for asylum from El Salvador in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request for asylum, but granted him "withholding of removal," which specifically prohibited his deportation to El Salvador due to the risk of persecution there
  • ICE did not appeal this decision, and he was released.
  • The withholding of removal meant he was still removable from the US, just specifically not to El Salvador. The government could have legally deported him to any other country willing to accept him without violating the court order.
  • The "administrative error" was that ICE deported him specifically to El Salvador in March 2025 despite being aware of his protection from removal to that country, violating the exact limitation imposed by the court.
  • And now the Trump admin is saying "yeah we did the thing we were specifically ordered by the court not to do, but now it's done and even though we could fix it we won't and you can't make us".
  • And the Trump admin is probably correct on the "and you can't make us" part, because in the end a court order is a piece of paper and someone still has to enforce said court order.
  • This doesn't actually set any legal precedent that this method of deportation is ok though, it just adds to the growing pile of divergences between what the law says agencies must do and how government agencies actually operate in practice.

He applied for asylum from El Salvador in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request for asylum, but granted him "withholding of removal," which specifically prohibited his deportation to El Salvador due to the risk of persecution there

This seems like a pretty nonsensical status that I can't really explain. The guy is from El Salvador, which is then about the only country that could be reasonably expected to take him back for no reason (others would also expect dollars, most likely). I get that there are real concerns about it's criminal justice practices these days (which are maybe better than it's previous murder practices), but I can't really explain this ruling other than an activist judge recognizing that he doesn't actually qualify for asylum but granting him the closest functional equivalent: Surely asylum would apply if he was actually at risk of persecution (on the basis of protected statuses) and applied truthfully for it in the US. Or maybe I'm missing something?

To that I'll add my confusion about "we can't just send him back to a country with a 'shady' human rights record!" arguments. If his argument for being allowed to stay in the US was "I'm being threatened by gangs", isn't that problem largely taken care of by now?

That is an excellent point.

Though he's being held in prison in El Salvador? Because the US said so? And he has no rights as an El Salvsdor citizen himself to demand his release?

Though he's being held in prison in El Salvador? Because the US said so?

Oh god, now I can't get the image out of my head, where he's getting locked up, and then hears a familiar voice from inside the cell saying "welly, welly, well... look who's here!".

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