site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32046 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Some updates:

  • The Trump administration has announced that, in addition to bringing federal charges against the perpetrator, they have taken into custody and are considering deporting six members of his immediate family who have also illegally immigrated.
  • USA Today quickly brought the sob story of one of those family members. And there is, after all, a fair complaint: we do not, generally, permit the sins of the father to flow to the son daughter. Even assuming a duty to report that pierces the family and that shirtless flamethrower guy was spitting a lot of cause for suspicion around his wife and kids (tbf...), it'd be worthwhile to at least specifically say some specific thing they should have done.
  • But it's not clear if there's reason they would not be deportable even without the whole 'family member tried to burn a dozen people alive'. They overstayed a tourist visa issued in 2022 and filed for asylum in that same year, from a country that most of the actual statutory grounds for asylum are pretty hard to hit (uh, especially for a guy with a wife).
  • And federal law specifically requires DHS to find inadmissable any spouse or children of anyone who has committed a "terrorist attack" in the previous five years. This doesn't exactly cover asylum hearings, but it's going to weigh pretty heavily on any that happen.
  • Except a judge has already issued a TRO for the next week. Anyone want to bet whether that gets extended by or on the 11th?
  • Notice some interesting parts to that? Ex parte, not sure if service had even been issued to the United States government, and... uh, that's not Soliman on the name plate. Nor even an organization any of the family belongs to. Instead, it turns out to be an immigration lawyer with a messy background herself. I haven't been able to find exactly what that immigration misconduct was, and it could be a minor thing, but it takes a lot to get actually suspended from the practice of law in an immigration context.
  • Because the family have been moved to Texas, it's not clear what, exactly, is going on between the lawyer and the family. It's very unclear how Gallager, a federal judge in Colorado, has jurisdiction.

Anyone want to bet whether that gets extended by or on the 11th?

Two more weeks, or until the order of the Fifth Circuit.

Still stayed.

With eight people, all older than fifty and some over eighty, facing serious burns, it'll be a minor miracle if there are no fatalities.

We didn't get a miracle.

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