site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What law specifically?

8 USC 1231(b)(3)(A). An immigration judge, using the Attorney General's delegated authority, found Abrego Garcia would be threatened if removed to El Salvador and granted a withholding a removal. There is not even an allegation by the government or anyone else that they followed any part of the procedure for revising this decision before they removed him. See also Johnson v. Guzman Chavez.

If authority is delegated by the Attorney General than it is ultimately the Attorney General's call whether Garcia can be removed. Someone should call Pam Bondi and inform her of the situation.

Yes. There is a process for Bondi to overturn the determination of an IJ and if that process had occurred before his removal, there is no question it would have been lawful.

Is that process defined by Congress, or by executive policymaking? Admittedly it could be some combination of both (policy specifically to implement details called out in law).

Policy making I believe, the statute itself doesn't describe a process. I suspect the real question is to what extent the AG's determination (which requires finding a specific category applies) is subject to judicial review.

It feels very germane to this issue that "immigration judge" is not a judicial-branch role here: it's someone the AG has delegated their Congress-given power to decide the merits of these immigration cases. Honestly, it's IMO a terrible name for the role because it's so misleading. It seems like the relevant questions in this case are less "the administration (and perhaps the AG specifically) disobeyed a judicial order" and more "the administration (and perhaps the AG specifically) didn't follow its own documented procedures": the former is a very legitimate separation of powers concern, while the latter is, still legitimately, more a question of proper procedures -- capriciousness, notice-and-comment requirements, and documentation.

Naively, "if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened" in (b)(3)(A) seems completely satisfied by the AG testifying "I have decided" regardless of what her delegates have documented in the past. That said, I am absolutely willing to accept procedural questions about what "decided" needs to mean for good governance, weighted against the idea that past executive branches shouldn't be able to forever bind future executive actions.

That's not a law. You're stretching.

You want to sat precedent and a judgment, sure.

This is why things like the Supreme Court exists.

The U.S. Code is, quite literally, the law of the land.

A judge made a interpretation. Other parts of the justice system disagrees.

This isn't nearly as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

Please read the rest of my comment

The rest of your comment doesn’t make sense!

@Gillitrut gave you the U.S. law which governs this situation, the act of Congress which established it, and a Supreme Court case specifying that yes, §1231 applies.

What “other parts” disagree?

Can you tell me in what sense it is not a law? It was passed by Congress in 1952 as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If this isn't a law, what is?

I suspect a confusion between U.S.C and C.F.R.

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