site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   32394 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, it appears that Germany is following Trump's footsteps with regard to selectively removing foreigners for political speech:

The orders — issued by the state of Berlin, whose Senate administration oversees immigration enforcement — are set to take effect in less than a month. None of the four has been convicted of any crimes.

Some notes:

  • The four people to be deported are citizens of the US, Ireland and Poland. The latter two countries are part of the EU, as is Germany. One of the cornerstones of the EU single market is the free movement of people. It appears to be more of a privilege than a right, actually. For contrast, imagine if Bavaria decided to refuse entry to people from Prussia, or California decided to deport any people born in Texas -- both would be blatantly unconstitutional.
  • This decision was made by the city of Berlin, which is ruled by a coalition of CDU/SPD (convervative/labor) -- the same constellation which will rule Germany in the future. The CDU is basically trying to rebrand itself as AfD light -- adopting policies suggested by the far right. (The AfD is of course very opposed to anything which could be considered pro-Muslim antisemitism. Not that they are overly fond of holocaust memorials, though.) The SPD is notorious for lacking any organ resembling a spine, so it is unsurprising that they went along with it.
  • The targeted people were accused of participating in a pro-Gaza demonstration. Some where accused of shouting "From the river to the sea", which is illegal in Germany (and I am ok with it being illegal). However, none of them have been convicted so far.

Now, I am not per-se against deporting foreigners if they have been convicted of a serious offense, say if their prison sentences exceed 10% (or 20%) of the time they have spent in the host country so far. From what I can tell, most of the accusations here are very minor, though. Using immigration laws to sidestep due process is wrong, though.

Also, for EU citizens, expelling them should additionally be contingent on a separate court case in front of some EU court and subject to criminal standard of evidence. If Berlin wants to get rid of these people, let them argue why they are a hazard to their security in front of a judge.

From what I can tell, most of the accusations here are very minor, though. Using immigration laws to sidestep due process is wrong, though.

In many of these conversations, the term "due process" is doing a ton of work that isn't consistent with my understanding of it. Without looking anything up and prior to these arguments, if someone asked me what "due process" meant, I think I would have said that it refers to having a clear and legible legal standard that can't be circumvented to achieve an end goal. That doesn't actually mean that it must take particularly long, that there is no discretion involved, and that there must be some remedy to having it executed. In the case of the Hamas-sympathetic immigrants, I do not interpret "due process" as meaning that they're entitled to anything other than the explicitly laid out statutory considerations, which include discretion for removal at the behest of the Secretary of State's judgment. That's it, that's the due process, it's that when you're a non-citizen in the United States, the Secretary of State has discretion for your removal. If you think that's a bad law, that's fine, but the law exists and was passed legitimately by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President.

As a matter of principle, I am completely fine with the due process leading to deportation being pretty short and shallow. You just don't have any actual right to live in countries that you're not a citizen of (Schengen and other arrangements notwithstanding). If the host country simply thinks you're really annoying, they can tell you to leave.

I think there should be a taboo on citing "due process" as a concern without articulating what process you think is due in this particular case.

For example, I don't think that anyone is claiming that countries may never expel someone short of a full criminal conviction. Nor do I think anyone is claiming that countries don't have discretion when to renew temporary visas or confer discretionary status.

Rather, it just seems like a free-for-all term.

I think "due process" has come to be a Russell's Conjugation: "I am a peacefully requesting my due process rights recognized by law, you are raising procedural hurdles to ensure the law is respected, and that guy over there is claiming 'due process' to indefinitely forestall judgement against himself."

And I can see why some are frustrated this only seems to apply in some directions: some legal decisions can get handed down quickly and hamfistedly (vaccine mandates, forcing closed houses of worship), while others (asylum claims, death penalty appeals, cashless bail) can get backlogged indefinitely to the clear benefit of the party claiming "due process."

Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.

Without denying that (a) there is obviously a strong philosemitic streak on the German and American center-right and that (b) Israeli and Zionist lobbyists are obviously pleased with this kind of thing, it is also a convenient excuse to get rid of people both of these movements vehemently disagree with anyway.

Essentially nobody on the right is caught up in this (even comparatively fringe right-wing antisemites have essentially zero involvement in mainstream pro-Palestinian / anti-Zionist movements and would be immediately kicked out if their dissident right views on various other topics like immigration and race were known). By contrast, pretty much every leftist radical (even, increasingly, in Germany, where there was long an unusual minor group of leftist pro-Israel sympathizers) and all Islamists are pro-Palestinian. Given both groups are broadly opposed by everyone on the right, this is a convenient excuse.

Essentially nobody on the right is caught up in this

So? It's still an act of absolute cuckoldry to let it happen.

Not really, no. It gets rid of people they hate. That's why they did it.

Funny how they don't seem to be able to do that with unrepentant rapists.

Because actual criminals are not a threat to them. Activists are.

Did you think politicians were dispassionately interested in the welfare of the common person?

No, but 2rafa was making the argument that European right wingers shouldn't be bothered by this, because they won't be affected. That's the perspective I was addressing this from, not that of the politician.

The right can either reopen the German constitution (which they don’t have a majority for on this topic, even if it exists for other things) or use this approach to deport people they don’t like.

As much as I don't like it, international treaties are already treated as equal to the constitution, and Schengen is indeed such a treaty. I'm not against jettisoning it, but doing it for Israel is, like I said, an act of utter cuckoldry,

And particularly in Germany, this isn’t so much setting a precedent of anti-free speech so much as putting the shoe on the other foot for once.

No, Germany has always been doing this. If anything Trump is following in Europe's footsteps... except I believe the US has done this before, just rather more low key and nearly always by refusing entry rather than giving them the boot after they are here.

Most of the wailing in the US seems to be based on two cases. Mahmoud Khalil, who was involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations which were not peaceful and is subject to a law requiring the personal (not delegated) approval of the Secretary of State to use. The main issue with him is he's a permanent resident, and I wouldn't cry if the law was found to be unconstitutional as applied to permanent residents, but this guy definitely at least deserves the boot. And Yunseo Chung, who was on a student visa and accused of an actual crime though at this point it is not clear if this is a pretext or not.

And Yunseo Chung, who was on a student visa and accused of an actual crime though at this point it is not clear if this is a pretext or not.

As far as I can tell, Yunseo Chung held a green card and has been in the country since she was 7. This is reported by many news sources and I've yet to find one that disputes this. She was arrested for a misdemeanor "obstructing governmental administration" as part of a protest.

This is what I have a problem with. For illegals, we can make the argument that they were breaking and entering, they were squatters, they broke the social contract so we can deport them with minimal due process. Fine. For immigrants on visitor visas like students or tourists, we can make the argument that they are guests, and it's fine to deport them with minimal due process because they have lives back home. Fine. I'm not okay with this being applied to permanent residents. For Yunseo, she's been living here since she was 7, it's literally uprooting her from the life she's ever known to a foreign country she may not have a connection with. And for what? A misdemeanor arrest? If she was illegal, it's an easier pill to swallow, but she followed the rules, and she's authorized to be a permanent resident here in the US. I understand the law is set up so Sec State can deport anyone he wishes, but I believe it is unjust to do it on such flimsy rationale in this case.

Further, I don't believe this will be ultimately beneficial for red-tribe, but this is just my theory. From a cursory search, there are about 13 million green card holders in the United States. Some of them lean blue and some of them lean red. Before this administration, there was an understanding that permanent residency status was "generally safe" and there were very limited circumstances where you could be deported. Thus the practical difference between green card holders and citizens were small, and the ones going for citizenships were motivated by their love for America (among other things), which made that set of people lean red. But now there's a new motivation. If green card holders who lean blue believe they are more likely to face arbitrary or pretextual deportation, this provides a strong motivation of self-preservation for them to seek citizenship. Gaining citizenship as a green card holder is almost trivial compared to an illegal or a visitor gaining citizenship, so we can expect to see an increase in blue-leaning eligible voters in the future.

I think the more objectionable case, so far as any one has demonstrated, is attempting to deport a student-visa holder for co-authoring an op-ed in the student newspaper supporting divestment.

Claiming the op-ed in question offers support for terrorist organizations, or is detrimental to U.S. foreign policy, is stretching that definition very thin.

As far as I can tell it's only her lawyer making the claim that the op-ed is the only reason she's being deported. It appears the government has not laid out its case yet. Rubio has weighed in but it's not clear if he was personally involved before the fact; if he was, I'd increase my estimation that it was the op-ed, but Rubio did imply there was more:

“If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we are not going to give you a visa,”

As far as I can tell it's only her lawyer making the claim that the op-ed is the only reason she's being deported.

If I had a nickel for every time I saw "Client innocent, defense lawyer alleges" as a headline or article premise, I'd probably be able to retire. Which is weird, because it's what lawyers on that side are paid to do, and seems the most dog-bites-man story available. But it works great if you're a journalist trying to muckrake.

Rubio’s quote was about 300-some attempted deportations, not this particular student. And, the article cities not just her lawyer but friends and colleagues who can’t recall much activism beyond the op-ed.

Not very impressed. I mean ever person listed has at least some vested interest in her staying in country. It’s not even neutral people say in the newspaper office saying that she wasn’t that political except to write this one thing, or someone at the protest talking about her being polite to Jews or something. It’s all her lawyer, her friends, and her colleagues— people who benefit if she stays.

I don’t think the aim is to impress anyone. And the Trump administration certainly has an interest in being very aggressive, on the other side of things. To the point made elsewhere, there has been additional evidence about involvement with disruptive protests, etc. for the other students picked up by ICE for deportation (i.e. Mahmoud Khalil) and I have not seen any surface in this case.

I’m not impressed with the defense. Every single person cited as evidence that she shouldn’t be deported has at least some interest in her staying, either for professional reasons or personal reasons. It’s like saying that “my mother says im a nice person” — you’d have to be extraordinarily naive to take as gospel the words of such people, especially when other neutral parties are silent. If the Jewish Student Union were standing up for her, that would be evidence. Her friends? Her coworkers? Her defense lawyer? It’s not impressive.

And, the article cities not just her lawyer but friends and colleagues who can’t recall much activism beyond the op-ed.

Oh, friends and colleagues too? Will we eventually get a photo of her involved in some campus-disrupting protest right next to said friends and colleagues? Look, skepticism about the government's position makes sense, but lacking any skepticism about her activities does not.

I certainly would not take anyone’s word here as gospel. But her friends and colleagues aren’t deporting anyone. And unlike the other individuals that have reached public attention, I have yet to see any evidence she was engaged in disruptive protests.

For contrast, imagine if Bavaria decided to refuse entry to people from Prussia, or California decided to deport any people born in Texas -- both would be blatantly unconstitutional.

If Bavaria were actively removing people from Prussia it would likely go over very poorly, as the victims would exclusively be senior citizens.

“Get in zee van, Opa!”

And Germany’s wealthy, Catholic hillbillies don’t have to worry about denying entry to anyone coming from a deceased polity.

I used Prussia because Bavarian natives have a tendency to use the word Preiß (Prussian) for Germans from the northern half of Germany, often in the term Saupreiß (pig Prussian).

I am often surprised at the complete lack of Bavarian separatism.

I am not in the least surprised at how angry a citizen of Baden-Wurttemburg gets if you mistake them for a Bavarian

I mean, southerners being called Yankees…

There's an excellent, old James Cagney comedy, One, Two, Three, where Cagney is a Coca-Cola executive stationed in Cold War Berlin (before the wall went up). The big boss in Atlanta's teenage daughter is going to be visiting Berlin, and Cagney gets put in charge of hosting and keeping an eye on her.

She falls in love with an East German communist, and after visiting him, returns back to West Berlin with a balloon from a parade. Cagney scolds her, noting her father would be furious if he saw it, as it has "YANKEE GO HOME" printed on it -- to which the daughter replies, "Oh, no. Daddy hates Yankees."

I know what I'm watching this weekend. Every quote makes that movie sound hilarious

The pacing as it accelerates towards the resolution is great, as is Arlene Francis as a supporting actress.

On top of this they're still salty about being merged together. The rivalry between VfB Stuttgart and Karlsuher SC is downstream of it.

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