site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32006 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.

the administration that flew in a million illegal immigrants under temporary exemptions while only requiring them to put a name and email in a fucking phone app.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Everyone involved in the CBP One program needs to be in prison or deported to a prison.

For having broken what laws?

For having broken what laws?

Conspiracy to human trafficking.

This isn't human trafficking.

It is if you can find a prosecutor with half the flexibility of a progressive district judge.

CHNV, discussed here.

I think @SteveAgain is wrong about the terminology. “Inadmissible” was used, as intended, to describe someone without any of the immigration protections of a refugee or temporary resident. You can see it used the same way on the current dashboards like this one. The inadmissible numbers include anyone given a Notice To Appear under various laws…but not CHNV, which uses a different law.

Beneficiaries of that program were inadmissible and “parolees.” This was a separate status handled through USCIS instead of CBP.

Given the immense pressure on the border through the Biden presidency, it’s not hard to guess why ~530,000 people were granted parole. About 400,000 were flown from their ports of entry to other sites, mostly in Florida. Again, this didn’t affect their immigration status, but it sure did make it harder to count them.

Given the immense pressure on the border through the Biden presidency, it’s not hard to guess why ~530,000 people were granted parole.

It's not? Somehow Trump managed to solve the problem without resorting to that.

Yeah, but being Donald Trump was off the table.

To be clear, my guess is that parole was chosen as the easiest bleeding-heart-compatible overcrowding strategy. They wanted to handle the logistical problem without disincentivizing arrivals.

We have talked about the CBP One app and the CHNV program dozens of times. Pretending it's a completely new topic that requires extraordinary evidence all over again is an exhaustion tactic.

The CHNV program added another half million on top of that btw. It was all billed as "Biden reduces southern border crossings!" by flying them in directly. They were still listed as "inadmissible" on the graphs even though they were actually being admitted, giving the impression Biden was doing something about illegal immigration as long as you didn't look too closely. And of course the media didn't look at all and just regurgitated the admin's press releases.

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