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.

I mean, anything could accidentally happen to anyone, sure. Do we abolish the police because police could accidentally arrest you? Or accidentally even kill you? Nope

We have probable cause, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a quick and fair trial, which all serve to prevent such mistakes and to minimize their harms. The US government has a set up a system where there is no due process nor recourse for the people it deports, citizens or not.

The US government has a set up a system where there is no due process nor recourse for the people it deports, citizens or not.

Again, sounds like an issue for the legislature or executive branch to figure out

The courts have no jurisdiction on foreign matters. If you don’t like it, take it up with the constitution or perhaps El Salvadors government?

We did spend an awful lot of time and effort making it harder for them to do so, yeah? From English common law to bodycams. Incentives matter, and the incentives for the federal government to avoid deporting citizens ought to be pretty strong!

bodycams

The about-face on that one has been darkly humorous.

I’m not up to date on it. Was there a pivot after BLM? Or are you referring to the popularity of bodycam footage among a subset of the right wing?

Was there a pivot after BLM?

Yeah, bodycams got a boost as one of the top 10 recommendations of Campaign Zero. On their archived website you can find that they've changed their mind because it doesn't reduce use of force (indeed, it tends to justify it) and mention that they previously tracked it as a positive move, but it's not mentioned at all on the new website.

The popularity of bodycam footage on the right is directly correlated to the turn against it on the left. Both are, frankly, gross.

The popularity of bodycam footage on the right is directly correlated to the turn against it on the left. Both are, frankly, gross.

What’s gross about it?

From the right, I find reveling in violence, particularly for Outgroup reasons, off-putting. Bodycams are a useful tool, but treating the footage as entertainment isn't healthy.

From the left, I find such clear rejection of reality disturbing.

the incentives for the federal government to avoid deporting citizens ought to be pretty strong!

Good thing that didn’t happen then

No, but we might want to reform it if they kept accidentally killing people, then saying "yeah, we weren't supposed to do that, sorry. we won't make any reparations or apologize or nothing, though. yeah, it'll probably happen again. no, we don't care".

Sure, reform it through the legislative branch then. The courts have no jurisdiction.

But beware what you wish for. Making it even harder to deport people when you’re already 20+ million behind in the docket is no bueno senior (although maybe that’s what you’re hoping for)

If the police accidentally arrest you, they are supposed to let you out. If they accidentally kill you, they may have to pay out a settlement if they lose a court case. If you get deported when you shouldn't have been, apparently there's no takebacks and no remedy of any kind and none are even possible in theory.

If the police were allowed to shoot anyone they wanted with zero consequences, that would be bad.

If you get deported when you shouldn't have been, apparently there's no takebacks and no remedy of any kind and none are even possible in theory.

Sounds like a problem for the legislative or executive branch to solve! These judges need to stand back and stand down

The executive branch deported this guy despite the fact that the executive branch said the guy can't be deported, which according to the law passed by the legislative branch, should have prevented him from being deported.

The entire function of the judiciary is to redress grievances of this kind.

Actually the judicial branch has no jurisdiction here, as they themselves have admitted

The Supreme Court certainly did not say that. They said the District Court overstepped, not that they had no jurisdiction at all.

They did solve it. The order prohibiting removal to El Salvador wasn't an equitable remedy the judge made up on the spot; it was pursuant to US law. If the legislative branch wants to change the law, then fine, but until they do that, Trump should be making every reasonable effort to get the guy back.

Trump should be making every reasonable effort to get the guy back.

Courts have admitted they can’t compel the administration on foreign matters. It’s up to El Salvador to release him now.

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