site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   28381 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 30, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think it was done to the Nazis qua being a Nazi, it was done because they materially lied about it during naturalization.

Yes, but if they'd admitted to being a Nazi, they wouldn't have been naturalized. The proposed Hamasnik deportations are for the same reason.

Saying otherwise is invited gaming an already extremely gameable immigration system with the idea that if you perpetuate a fraud, tough luck it's just done.

My preferred solution would be a statute of limitations; maybe 3 years for ordinary stuff, 7 years for really bad stuff.

My preferred solution would be a statute of limitations; maybe 3 years for ordinary stuff, 7 years for really bad stuff.

This is the sort of gamification that just encourages the evil doers. 7 Years is already plenty of time to spread around a few anchor babies so the judge will look favorably on you and maybe violate black letter law in your favor.

Even with no statute of limitations, children of the denaturalized person wouldn't be affected.

Indeed, damage enough to the country.

The difficulty is that a determined person could easily maintain their allegiance without overt signs especially in service to a greater cause. If I’m a person allied to hezbollah I don’t want the USA to know that, and especially if I’m joining a cell in the USA. If all I have to do is hide my allegiance to hezbollah for three years, I can probably scrub my name from official records, purge my social media, and keep my mouth shut for three years and be fine.

Yes, there are negative consequences of such limitations. Of course, if that Hezbollah cell does anything, the citizen can still go through the criminal process for it as a citizen. The alternative is that 40 years post-naturalization you've got people poring through old records looking for a lie big enough to denaturalize someone.

And note it is longer than 3 years -- it take 3 years to become a citizen from getting a green card, if you're married to a citizen, and 5 years otherwise.

I mean 40 years is a bit long, but I’d put it to at least 7-10 years simply because scrubbing your feeds, removing yourself from lists, etc. is unlikely to be that successful beyond 5 years because you forget about old accounts, you forget that mailing list you signed up for, or buy something incriminating with a credit card and those things will still be there because you won’t be paying attention to something that far back.

I can agree in principle to limiting the look back period

Yes, but if they'd admitted to being a Nazi, they wouldn't have been naturalized.

Possibly, Probably. and the HAMASniks would have likely (or at least ought to have been) denied entry if they had gone into thier naturalization hearing chanting "death to America" and "globalize the infitada".

Have you ever aligned yourself with an enemy of the United States, if so explain the circumstances. is exactly the sort of question we ought to be asking someone before letting them in.

What is the definition of an "enemy of the United States" though? Hamas is primarily an enemy of Israel, and though Israel and the US share a relationship that is as close as lips and teeth at the moment, "dump Israel and ally with Hamas instead" is a real political position that is represented by a non-trivial number of native actors in the American system. If against all odds those actors were to come into power and implement their agenda, should pro-Israelis be (retroactively) denaturalized? Would there be a way at all to get legally and irreversibly naturalised in a futureproof way without staunchly refusing to have an opinion on Israel/Palestine and perhaps also every other important geopolitical issue where the US may switch sides in the future, or perhaps at most enthusiastically participating in the current Two Minutes of Hate whatever the target?

(And then, what classes of enmity are we considering? For smaller-scope questions than foreign alliances, the government position may flip every four years. Can Democrats denaturalize "Latinos for Trump"?)

Hamas is primarily an enemy of Israel

This is not an uncommon position, but it is clearly incorrect. At the very least, someone who makes this line of argumentation needs to give a disclaimer to avoid being correctly called a liar. That disclaimer would be something along the lines of, "because of Hamas' strategic and military incompetence, and the vast distance between us and them I don't consider them a threat."

I don't find these arguments FOR incompetence compelling, but if you are adopting them you should be clear about it. Because I know in my heart that if Hamas had our army and we had Hamas's militias, they'd simply kill us all with nukes and laugh while doing it.

What is the definition of an "enemy of the United States" though?

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization. If that isn't sufficient to meet the definition, then I'm not sure what is.

The IRA is listed there too, but they were not enemies of America and indeed were partly funded by American groups.

I think refusing to have an opinion is fine, but it seems reasonable enough for any nation to declare that 'death to {nation}" is beyond the pale.

Well, the Ukrainians get pretty close to that wrt Russia ("Muscovites onto the gallows" was a popular slogan even before the war). Does that mean that if Trump goes full rapprochement with Putin, pro-Ukrainians would be up for denaturalization?

Given the two attempts at invasion/annexation in 10 years (one of them ongoing) it seems reasonable that the Ukrainians would not want ZZ-niks working in thier country, voting in thier elections, etc.

Remember that we are talking about naturalization here IE whether or not we let a person in, and once in, how much of an obligation is there to let them stay.

Given the ongoing genocide of nearly 80 years, it seems pretty reasonable that the Palestinians would not want (...), too...?

You are trying to frame the two situations as fundamentally different, but it seems that your view of the difference boils down to whether you think the respective death-wishers are the "good guys". It's convenient for you that your current opinion of good and evil aligns with that of the US government, but the whole point of my hypothetical was, what if the US government's position changes?

If a "genocide" is still ongoing after 4 generations it's not much of a "genocide" is it?

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