site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   27275 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Note that the specific types of legal challenges we're talking about are mostly a Biden-era thing. Bush and Clinton were before my time so there may have been something there that I'm unaware of, but during Obama's tenure there wasn't really any serious challenges in the vein of "hey can you enforce like any immigration restrictions at all?" The major Republican legal challenge that I remember was against DAPA, which functionally would have led to Obama not enforcing immigration laws on a certain category of people, but Obama lost and DAPA died.

Not quite. The case around DAPA focused on whether the memo followed the APA. SCOTUS left a preliminary injunction (due to a tie vote!) about the DAPA memo itself, but the case was never processed on its merits, and eventually mooted rather than actually requiring the administration follow the law, and that only because Trump won the election literally within months.

There were several other major cases, such as whether states could refuse to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants covered under DAPA/DACA/DREAM. Oh, and that little thing called DACA? Maybe you might have heard of it? Big thing that Trump couldn't end it.

During that time we were still in the era where Presidents followed the orders of courts without additional enforcement needed from plaintiffs alleging harms, so when the courts ruled against DAPA that was functionally the end of the conversation.

... the Obama administration issues thousands of work permits under DAPA after the Fifth Circuit injunction, and then said oops. A further hundred thousand reprieves were granted after the Obama administration swore before the court and in written submissions that they would not act on the memo while the court was ruling on the preliminary injunction to start with. During appeals the Obama administration held that it could offer whatever individualized discretion it wanted, so long as no one made those decisions because of the DAPA rule. Nor was this problem specific to DAPA. The Obama admin repeatedly refused to follow both statutory requirements and court orders mandating notice to a state for settling refugees, up to and including directing state charities to not tell state authorities.

When Congress couples “shall” with a detailed statutory scheme that leaves no gap for agency choice, the courts have consistently treated those duties as legally enforceable, and even gone so far as to vacate rules and enjoin the Executive when it violated them.

Show me an example, in this or a related context. Your entire argument rests on this, you're repeatedly drawn back to this complete bullshit well, and you can't even deflect well.

((I mean, the first one's somewhere between misleading an false; SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of the immigration restrictionist position in DAPA, it was a tie that always leads to the lower court action holding, and a simple google search on the citation would have shown that! If you mean to say that some courts might, well...))

Did you notice that you gave a three-point bulleted list, and two of them have case citations, and one of them doesn't, and the last one is the only bit that fucking matters? Do you notice that I provided an exact quote from a majority SCOTUS opinion holding that the thing you're asking for would be either an unreviewable political question or unconstitutional?

Note that I draw a pretty strict line between talking about public figures + political movements generally, and talking about people participating in the conversation right now.

Hm...

The conversation you linked where I posted that was a particular case where they functionally said "I think you're meaning to say , but you actually sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify", where I replied with "well, I think you guys sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify".

There is a contradiction, here. What, exactly, do you think the difference between "people participating in the conversation right now" are, and what "you guys sound like" is?

I wouldn't have started down that line of my own volition, but I found what they said had some usefulness so I gave them my own perspective.

Oh, well, if it's okay to be rude as long as someone else's behavior indicates some usefulness... that'd be a fun rule to run! Invite me.

you're repeatedly drawn back to this complete bullshit well, and you can't even deflect well.

and the last one is the only bit that fucking matters?

Nope, I'm done with this. And since you've both stated and demonstrated that you don't want engage without going to personal attacks then I'm just probably not going to reply to you much any more.

And you've demonstrated that you just don't want to engage. But hey, I'm sure calling people cultists up and down will really change minds.

Just in an more interesting way than I hope you intend.

EDIT: and you've done a respond-and-block. Grats.

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