site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   27350 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.

This centers the criminal, and his rights, and what is in his interest. What about my rights? And my interests? Why should my state put the interest of someone who has zero right to be here above mine?

He is not an American. He has zero right to be here. He broke the law to be here. He lied that he was in danger to abuse our asylum laws. He is not a good faith actor.

Given the harmfulness of being locked up indefinitely in a country with a spotty human rights record, I would argue that this demands due process on the scale of a capital crime trial.

Infinity Salvadorans, Infinity Afghans, Infinity Somalians

Why should my state put the interest of someone who has zero right to be here above mine?

The point is that the same logic which is being applied here could be used to deport and abandon citizens. Just ignore due process, do what you want and then, oops, looks like you're in a tinpot dictatorship now so nothing we can do because there's no way to redress your grievance.

'I don't care about due process because this guy was guilty anyway' is not a very coherent position.

If they just grabbed him off the street and deported him I would be more open to your POV. But they didn't. He is not an American, it was properly established and litigated he was here illegally.

This centers the criminal, and his rights, and what is in his interest. What about my rights? And my interests? Why should my state put the interest of someone who has zero right to be here above mine?

He is not an American. He has zero right to be here. He broke the law to be here. He lied that he was in danger to abuse our asylum laws. He is not a good faith actor.

Given that he was imprisoned without trial on his return to El Salvador, he wasn't wrong that he was in sufficient danger to trigger the asylum laws. His claim to be in danger from gangs (indeed, a specific gang that was a rival of MS-13) may also be correct, but in these parts I understand that the hip terminology is "directionally correct", which he certainly was.

Yes he was wrong. He fabricated a specific claim of danger to game our asylum laws. That some totally different thing happened to him has no bearing on his original claim.

What rights of yours were infringed? What evidence is there that he fabricated a specific claim of danger?

I also have a right to rule of law, and I rank my right much higher than his.

What evidence did Garcia need to stay here? Per his 2019 removal proceedings the only evidence he needed was testimony of him and his family that they were threatened. Why would I believe him when 1) he didn't apply for asylum until it was clear he was going to be deported and 2) his family at the time were in Guatemala, not El Salvador? I just don't believe him.

He lied that he was in danger to abuse our asylum laws. He is not a good faith actor.

Given that he was imprisoned without trial on his return to El Salvador, he wasn't wrong that he was in sufficient danger to trigger the asylum laws. His claim to be in danger from gangs (indeed, a specific gang that was a rival of MS-13) may also be correct, but in these parts I understand that the hip terminology is "directionally correct", which he certainly was.

Yes he was wrong. He fabricated a specific claim of danger to game our asylum laws. That some totally different thing happened to him has no bearing on his original claim.

Requesting clemency for patricide on grounds of being an orphan is certainly a strategy.

"I'm in danger from one gang because I'm a member of another gang" is a cheeky reason to demand asylum, but I don't think it's actually valid. And Garcia claims not to be a member of MS-13.

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