site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   29144 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Recently @RandomRanger accused me of strawmanning the Right:

Turok was being banned for being overtly aggressive and obnoxiously creating imaginary narratives like "The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain."

That's not what the 'woke right' thinks and he surely knows it. He need only check the MAGA rhetoric from Trump about good factory jobs, or the rhetoric from the right about the need to mechanize dull fruitpicking jobs and raise productivity. Why, they say, should millions of people be brought into the country if AI is going to destroy everyone's jobs? Or the need to have American wealth kept in America rather than sent off in remittances. Or them hating H1Bs as cost-cutting that interferes with developing talent. Or them not seeing the country as purely an economic zone but having responsibility to native citizens. It's an insanely uncharitable and aggressive butchering of other people's ideology.

Did I strawman the Right? Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:

FOX: I think American citizens are willing to do the jobs that illegal immigrants are willing to do.

LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER: Americans are willing to do the job. What we have to give them is the opportunity to have those jobs.

DeRemer refers to "Americans," the online racialist Right is talks about whites, but in both cases the vision is the same, uplifting the ingroup means getting them the opportunity to do the jobs currently done by the guy standing in the Home Depot parking lot. Is there any wonder high-income whites are moving away from the Republican Party? Working-class whites, too, don't want their sons working casual labor, which is why in the video DeRemer goes on to talk about how Americans will be given opportunity through being "skilled, upskilled, re-skilled" and how the Trump administration is increasing apprenticeships. Of course, few illegals do those high-skilled jobs, so upskilling Americans won't replace many illegals, but it's not like the Fox News host is going to point out the apparent contradiction.

Given that I've given an example from a cabinet-level Trump administration official, (not "nutpicked" from some rando on Twitter) I expect that @RandomRanger will withdraw his claim that I "obnoxiously created imaginary narratives" in the interests of truth and courtesy.

  • -38

Alex is definitely here reading all the comments, yet the only time he ever responds is a 1 sentence dig at what he believes is a mistake a commenter made.

To the dozens of high effort well researched posts, it's radio silence for every single one. Alex has not made a single substantiative response downthread in this thread or any other thread he started.

I'm not sure whether only responding to the very weakest of your opponents counts as a strawman, but it's certainly infuriating.

Ehhh.. there's a ton of sophistry on the internet, The Motte is no exception. Let's not pretend this is the Library of Alexandria or the old salons of Europe. There is an occasional interesting and well-thought out post, but those are mostly an exception. This is why I mostly lurk and now just skim top level posts for an interesting topic. It's probably best to view this site as a place where somewhat rightwing malcontents talk amongst themselves with an occasionally centrist or somewhat liberal poster chiming in.

Look, I used to be quite liberal, but back in the "age of woke" I got turned against progressive idiocy. I read SSC, Less Wrong, Steve Sailer, etc. and that helped me see the overreach and sometimes straight out wrongness of the mid 00-10's progressive and liberal ideologies. However, I never dug that deep beyond some rightwing/centrist thinkers. Now that a lot of the right is either in power or in the spotlight (see X), I see how stupid much of it is. Politicians talking about banning chemtrails, TACO Don who doesn't understand trade beyond a general love of tariffs and wants to continue scamming his supporters (e.g. formerly Trump University, now Trump Coin, Trump scent, etc.), and to quote SSC, the spineless toady JD Vance. It's just all so stupid! Well, stupid and malicious. It reminds me of an older meme about Pakistan; that they'd be 100% ok with the world blowing up as long as India was destroyed first.

There are strong arguments to be made about some right wing positions, e.g. reducing the deficit, decoupling from China, demanding NATO allies pay more, on-shoring, etc. but these clowns are just bad at this. The BBB adds to the deficit, tariff schizophrenia doesn't allow for a stable and long term industrial policy, etc.

The left might be wrong a lot of times, but that doesn't make the current right correct.

Dunking on maga is great but you should be expected to explain and defend your position. Not drop a cryptic reply like "I'm anti third-worldism." several times and never explain what that means.

As far as I know the "official" definition, as an obsolete cold-war political movement, has nothing to do with the current right at all.

Your posy by itself does a better job dunking on maga than any of Alex's sneering walls of text.

Not drop a cryptic reply like "I'm anti third-worldism." several times and never explain what that means.

Here he is with a related take though still not a coherent or contextually-appropriate one.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Alex believes that the first world is better than the third world. And actually the racists who want to deport all the immigrants from the third world are somehow actually the ones making the first world into the third world? Meanwhile unlimited immigration from the third world is no big deal?

I don't know what he thinks because I've never seen him try to articulate it instead of making snippy comments at people who are trying to understand. At this point I don't really care what he thinks and frankly I interpret any apparent effort on his part as likely to be a trolling operation.

You're broadly correct here: the anti-immigrant right (or "racialist Right") definitely don't regularly push back against claims that legal Americans would be willing to do those types of jobs. If they did, it would undercut their position that we should do mass deportations, so they either ignore it (like Catturd and friends) or they say legal Americans would do it if the price is right. The people claiming you're strawmanning Republicans in this specific post are hard to take seriously.

  • -14

Let me demonstrate how irritating you're being.

"Did I strawman the Left? Let's ask Sam Brinton."

"Did I strawman the Left? Let's ask Anthony Weiner."

"Did I strawman the Left? Let's ask Jasmine Crockett."

"Did I strawman the Left? Let's ask AOC."

You are not strawmanning. You are weakmanning. You are not giving your political opposition the benefit of the doubt. I have a whole list of leftist politicians, intellectuals, and academics that have said embarrassing and stupid things I'd like you to defend, if you'd care to play at this particular joust.

Wouldn't one expect a cabinet secretary to normally speak, at least to some degree, with the voice and the authority of the President? Different in that way from legislators (or someone lower in the departmental totem pole, like Brinton).

A cabinet secretary does in fact speak for the administration within their area of responsibility. They do not speak for the "woke right" (which itself is just a snarl term). That's like saying something Eric Adams says should be attributed to the progressive left (or to the Democratic Socialists of America, for a concrete group).

They do not speak for the "woke right" (which itself is just a snarl term).

What is your preferred term to describe the type of people that James Lindsay characterizes as "woke right"? I don't like the term either, but there is a generally identifiable group of people who @TheAntipopulist labelled "racialist Right" who are pretty much the same people Lindsay labels "woke right".

I'm OK with "racialist right" or the euphemistic "dissident right", but "woke right" is just a snarl, an attempt to force an equivalence with the woke left. Further, these people mostly aren't the MAGA right, and the Trump Administration cannot be said to speak for them.

Further, these people mostly aren't the MAGA right, and the Trump Administration cannot be said to speak for them.

Yeah, that's exactly the crux of the issue. Lots of these people have claimed that some Trump move - bombing Iran, not releasing the Epstein client list, granting amnesty to farmers - will irrevocably sunder the Trump coalition and that their position is the true MAGA position and anything else would be a betrayal to the voters, but I think MAGA is whatever Trump says it is.

If Trump announced some kind of amnesty for farm workers, that would be MAGA. If Trump announced that "mass deportations" never meant every single illegal, that would also be MAGA.

If Trump announced some kind of amnesty for farm workers, that would be MAGA.

No, in fact, MAGA got upset when it seemed he might and Trump backed off. Also note that MAGA was COVID-vaccine-skeptical and Trump was the opposite. That MAGA won't immediately dump Trump if he deviates from what they want doesn't mean MAGA is what Trump says it is.

But the "dissident right" just isn't MAGA in the first place.

No, in fact, MAGA got upset when it seemed he might and Trump backed off.

I'm not sure. I think it was actually almost entirely Stephen Miller:

In White House meetings, Miller took the lead in dialing back the president from moving toward anything that could be branded an "amnesty" program.

One idea that was shot down: a "touchback" program under which laborers illegally in the U.S. would have go back to their nation of origin, get a U.S. work visa there and be able to return here.

"Stephen is so hardcore that the president almost jokes about it, saying that, 'You could have a person who has been here for 20 years and has a clean record and everyone loves them, and Stephen will say deport them,' " according to one person who heard Trump's remarks.

Were it not for Miller, we might have something like an amnesty, or at least the policy of not arresting farmworkers would have continued.

Look at the other issues. MAGA was almost entirely united against bombing Iran, and Trump did it anyway. MAGA had a meltdown over Epstein, and Trump dismissed it. I'm skeptical that Trump cares very much about what the Online Right portion of MAGA (which as you say, isn't really MAGA) thinks.

More comments

Whether "woke right" exists or doesn't, "The Right" surely does, and this US administration does rather effectively speak for the Right in the American context.

Did Rubin or even Clinton speak for the left? US parties are really more like coalitions and even the president shouldn't be thought of as the best representative of all the groups, they're the one whose tolerable to the most groups not usually their favorite.

AOC at least used to have a large group she spoke for, but if AOC and Nancy Pelosi disagreed, you certainly couldn't say AOC spoke for the left as a whole.

Not only would Liz Cheney not agree, Elon Musk wouldn't either, so I don't believe this.

Liz Cheney is an unimportant bit player who hasn't been connected to the movement-right for years and Musk is specifically currently trying to start a party that's "neither left or right" (whether that's true or not, that at least is the self-description), so I'm not sure why these would be the figures for estimating this.

If AOC says something and isn't broadly getting a lot of pushback from her party, that would be quite indicative that at least a major fraction of the left believed something, or at least doesn't disagree with her. This is not weakmanning.

So, does that mean the lack of broad, vocal denounciations of Newsome's take here means that the Democrats support illegal immigrant child slavery on drug farms?

Have any Democrats spoken up about the dozen antifa who organized that pathetic mass murder attempt on ICE agents?

How many of these questions could I throw at you before you reject the premise?

that the Democrats support illegal immigrant child slavery on drug farms?

Is this controversial? The Democrats support having lots of illegal immigrants working at below market rates by violating labor laws. I don't think many mainstream Democrats would deny it, although they would probably phrase it differently. That naturally includes underaged workers.

It's the logical conclusion of having a large population of undocumented people. I think pretty much every Democratic politician who has any interest in illegal immigrants is at least aware that it's happening. Presented with a choice between allowing them to operate without the protection of labor laws or getting law enforcement involved and likely getting them deported, they are choosing the former in full knowledge of the consequences of that choice because they think it's the option that causes less harm.

Have any Democrats spoken up about the dozen antifa who organized that pathetic mass murder attempt on ICE agents?

This is a poor comparison. AOC is an elected official, the perpetrators of the "pathetic mass murder attempt" are a handful of deranged crooks.

What was your take on Kamela Harris cackling about the mere idea that the Second Amendment might not allow broad confiscation of lawfully owned guns?

It is still weakmanning to insist that [someone] else speaks for [group X] because arbitrary-subjective sections of [group X] weren't sufficiently vocal in denouncing [someone].

I just don't think that's true. If AOC says something like "abolish ICE" and a decent chunk of the Democratic party waffles as to whether they agree, then it's reasonable to say that a decent chunk of the party is at least sympathetic to the idea, even if they don't explicitly endorse the literal statement.

I think this is broadly true, but also requires notation of exceptions. the Democrat Party (and the Blue Tribe more broadly) is pathologically incapable of policing its' own members, because it's a very loosely-bound coalition of a bunch of different more-tightly-bound groups and the old intra-system methods of policing dissent have broken down in the last decade. So when someone like Kamala Harris or AOC or even Will Stancil says something nuts, there isn't a pathway for dissent to show itself that can't be dismissed as "right wing trolling".

You may not think it's true, but you certainly act as if it's true.

We can all look at your posting history and note that you are not spending your time denouncing or distancing yourself from any given stupid comment by any given political figure. Despite your constant failure to distance yourself from the infinite stupidity of the universe, it would, in fact, be unreasonable to claim that said stupidity represents you to any relevant degree.

There's a difference between "an individual doesn't reject stupid comments by their party" and "the broad mass of believers doesn't reject stupid comments by their party". The latter is much better evidence for the stupid comment being believed.

Why do you think it makes sense to say that the views of some random politician are emblematic of the "online racialist Right"? During the Biden administration, could I quote some random official and say that their position is the position of online radical leftists?

People accuse you of unfairly representing other groups opinions... because you don't understand their positions and represent them unfairly. And when people point out that you have done this you throw a big hissyfit. Then, you go right back to doing the same thing.

Why do you think it makes sense to say that the views of some random politician are emblematic of the "online racialist Right"?

She's a member of the United States Cabinet!

Lotta people have gotten used to being out of power. Now that Trump is President they're forced to either defend the administration they supported and voted for or criticize their own side, and they don't want to do either.

Quoting her is a good source of her opinion on an issue. It would also probably be a good source for the view of the administration as a whole (though Trump seems to disagree with his own people a lot). How exactly is it a good source for the view of the vague mass of people that you are ascribing her view to? Politicians and party bureaucracy always have disagreements with their supporters.

This argument--that you didn't even make--that you can assume their view is in congruence because they aren't making a big fuss about it is completely nonsensical and completely unsubstantiated. Hell, it would be hard to provide evidence for it though a few op-eds, essays or tweets from credible sources would work somewhat. Even if you had that though, why would we think that everyone has heard this random interview on 60 minutes? If they disagree, would they care enough to voice their disagreement? It isn't like we are talking about Obama drone striking people or something that would cause actual outrage.

Since you are having so much trouble with this I will help you out and give you a recipe of how to make a good post:

  1. Start with actual examples of what someone says.
  2. Describe their view briefly, in a way that they would recognize and agree with
  3. Criticize their view in precise terms
  4. Provide evidence for any factual claims

Relevant mod comment. If you want to say "these are the views of the Trump administration", then say "these are the views of the Trump administration".

Also, what do you mean by the adjective "racialist"? WN defines it as:

  1. A believer or advocate of racialism, the ideology of racial nationalism.

  2. (UK, dated) A racist.

Is "online racialist Right" an endonym? Who are these people? Do they want a white ethnostate in the US? Are they HBD-believers who want to restrict immigration based on what they see as genetic group differences? Did you just want to call them straightforward racist, but knew that this would generate a backslash, so you picked a rare word which strongly implies racism without saying the r-word outright?

On the object level, I think I share most of your opinions about Trump's immigration policy, which I detest. But I do not think you are doing a good job of accurately representing the beliefs of the Right, which is a prerequisite to honestly criticizing them.

I don't think that the Right has a great answer to what will happen to the fruit prices once the migrants who are willing to pick them in shitty conditions for low wages because they can feed their family in their country of origin with these wages are all deported. I think that a significant fraction of the MAGA base imagine that Trump, being a stable genius deal-maker, will simply pull the US into a golden age of prosperity and nobody will worry about fruit prices. The more realistic Trump voters might concede that prices of fruits might skyrocket if the pickers are US citizens earning a competitive wage, but simply see this as a price worth paying to kick the illegal immigrants out. Your framing which includes White druggies kicking their habit getting of their asses and start to pick fruits seems to me to be a minority viewpoint on the Right, to put it charitably.

Is "online racialist Right" an endonym? Who are these people?

Turok has a public Twitter account. Many of the people he responds to and interacts with on Twitter would be part of the "online racialist Right". If you're familiar with the term "dissident right", it's basically the same group of people. The primary dividing line between members of this group is the degree to which Jews should be blamed for societies various ills. I don't think that's an unfair characterization and if requested, I can try to put in the effort to cite to these various people and their statements.

Turok has a public Twitter account. Many of the people he responds to and interacts with on Twitter would be part of the "online racialist Right"

Here I think is the rub. I've personally gotten more familiar with the twitter/x sphere since the musk takeover. There is a common dynamic that happens there, where someone responds exclusively to the people they most disagree with in order to argue, a natural enough behavior. This however creates a kind of reverse echo chamber where the algorithm feeds them an overwhelming amount of exactly that type of person. I personally have frequently found my feed overwhelmed with Chinese Maoists regularly with only the occasional response to their nonsense. I know that Chinese Maoists are actually pretty rare so I've found it pretty easy to not assume that this is actually the mainstream belief but if you are responding to extreme racialists I can see how one could convince themselves that this is a major opinion of the online right. But what is really is is a kind of shadow of the poster's opinion, everything they most disagree with, because the algo accurately assumes it's what drives engagement.

This dynamic, where I see Chinese Maoists, confrontational conservatives there see idiotic leftists and @AlexanderTurok sees moronic Trumpists causes each of us to have a distorted vision of our opposition. Turok makes the mistake of then coming to this forum of actual thoughtful people and assuming the conservatives here need to answer for the worst Trumpists the engineers of X can serve. The conservatives here don't recognize themselves in the criticisms he levels at them and drama ensues.

This is all very understandable, but also very silly and avoidable. In fact the rules of this forum can and should correct for it But it's much more satisfying to assuming all of our enemies are as dumb as the dumbest people the algo of X can serve us. It's a very satisfying kind of assumption. It's just too bad that anyone who falls for it is going to spend the rest of their days tilting at windmills.

Turok makes the mistake of then coming to this forum of actual thoughtful people and assuming the conservatives here need to answer for the worst Trumpists the engineers of X can serve. The conservatives here don't recognize themselves in the criticisms he levels at them and drama ensues.

I am not a newcomer to the SSC sphere, I've been posting on ACX and DSL for years, and I've won DSL's Diadochus award for my posts twice. (I'm also currently banned from both places.) I'm not attributing the stupidity of Twitter to this place, I'm just reading what people here write, like coffee_enjoyer:

Sewing bras is more conducive to wellbeing than stacking them on a shelf. Picking fruit is so Edenic that it’s the first recorded activity of humanity. In what world would “picking fruit” be pathetic? I think you are having trouble dissociating the image you have of these things now, with what they would look like if employers didn’t have a semi-slave class. There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people. They work quite hard, then they drink in the evenings and dance and fuck and make music and so on. This is exactly what agricultural work was for nearly all of history. Not for the slaves, of course, but for the non-enslaved.

This, by the way, is what I mean by "poverty fetishism" and "third worldism."

I'm also currently banned from both places.

With respect, this means you should understand why you're being modded in this place. I want to, gently, repeat my request that you drop the sardonicism, snark, and drive-by insults because I think this place would be worse off without someone like you. Also, I am much closer to your side than the other side, so I'd hate you see you banned.

Don't get too caught up on coffee_enjoyer; he's a unique breed. He's like a BAPist – prone to philosophical musings – but with a relatively benign dose of anti-Semitism thrown in.

I am not a newcomer to the SSC sphere, I've been posting on ACX and DSL for years, and I've won DSL's Diadochus award for my posts twice.

I'm not accusing you of being an outsider, I'm responding to @shoeonfoot 's understanding that you're porting your disagreement with people on X, the everything app, over to this site. You can do that of course, it's a wellspring for many posts here, you posts would just be much better received if you appended "on twitter" somewhere in them so that people here can choose whether or not they want to defend those ideas without feeling like they're being imposed on them.

I'm not attributing the stupidity of Twitter to this place, I'm just reading what people here write, like coffee_enjoyer

I detect some differences between what you accused rightists here of believing and what coffee enjoyer is actually saying but if you had launched into your impassioned screen in response to this then the whole dynamic of the conversation would be different. That comment spawned some fair back and forth even among the right leaning contributors, I'd hazard that if this whole topic was less heated from the get-go you'd see even more pushback from other rightists who don't feel like you've forced them to defend this position by tying it to rightists in general.

This, by the way, is what I mean by "poverty fetishism" and "third worldism."

As an aside this is kind of confusing because "third worldism" has a different more common meaning related to anti-imperialism. It took a few times of you using and me scratching my head to realize you were using the term to mean something like sweatshop romanticism.

if you had launched into your impassioned screen in response to this

Would not be possible as that is a response to my impassioned screed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox

As an aside this is kind of confusing because "third worldism" has a different more common meaning related to anti-imperialism. It took a few times of you using and me scratching my head to realize you were using the term to mean something like sweatshop romanticism.

I'm repurposing it because the hero of the Online Right should be some unvaccinated Bengali peasant who drinks raw milk and does honest labor in a farm or factory rather than effeminizing fake email jobs and trusts religious authorities rather than scientists.

More comments

The primary dividing line between members of this group is the degree to which Jews should be blamed for societies various ills.

Sounds unpleasant. Personally, I came to believe that some HBD claims are true by reading Scott Alexander on the Ashkenazi intelligence hypothesis. "HBD explains why there are many Jewish Nobel laureates without having to resort to conspiracies" is actually a major selling point for me. (Of course, I would also prefer if the left would give up to insist that any inequality of outcome was due to unfairness and in return people would shut up about HBD until we can CRISPR everyone.)

She's a member of the United States Cabinet!

Which is a collection of individuals with distinct and often contrasting opinions, not a hive mind, or an avatar summoned from the collective unconscious of parts of the electorate.

Case in point:

Reality check: Generally, unauthorized farmworkers have had a de facto type of amnesty from immigration officials, who are hesitant to conduct raids on a labor force that supplies food across the nation.

There have been some farm raids under Trump (including a high-profile operation Thursday in California against a marijuana farm), but he mostly backed off widespread farm raids after June 12, when he took to Truth Social and lamented the loss of farm, leisure and hotel-sector labor.

"That was the bat signal to ICE: Leave the farmers alone," one Trump adviser said.

The intrigue: Trump's post that day was made after lobbying by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

But it caught three crucial administration players flatfooted: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's aggressive immigration policies.

"Every [Cabinet] secretary can't do that: Go rogue and call the president like this, without any sort of appreciation for competing conversations or ideology," another senior official said.

Inside the room: In White House meetings, Miller took the lead in dialing back the president from moving toward anything that could be branded an "amnesty" program.

One idea that was shot down: a "touchback" program under which laborers illegally in the U.S. would have go back to their nation of origin, get a U.S. work visa there and be able to return here.

For some workers, that would require an exception to current law, which bars re-entry into the U.S. for those who immigrate here illegally and stay for six months or more.

"Stephen is so hardcore that the president almost jokes about it, saying that, 'You could have a person who has been here for 20 years and has a clean record and everyone loves them, and Stephen will say deport them,' " according to one person who heard Trump's remarks.

There's a major difference between:

"The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain."

and "Americans are willing to do unspecified jobs that illegal immigrants do (at some unspecified but presumably higher wage)"

The former is basically an insult. The latter is vague politician opportunity and positivity speak. It's not deliberately and specifically picking out the lowest status roles. Hauling equipment, what is this, a Simpsons episode? https://youtube.com/watch?v=zTK_5Xz6X8Y&t=195

Likewise with 'skilled, up-skilled'. That's the future they envision. Some kids will be picking fruit as a summer job at a good wage - while not defrauding benefits like illegals. Then farmers will get some Made-in-America machine to scoop the tomatoes out of the ground. The kids will move onto more productive labour like making or maintaining machinery or building good houses... Whether this will actually happen is unknown but that's the idea.

And tariffs aren't even relevant here, the quote you find is about illegal immigration. Tariff 'industrial policy' may be ill-conceived and poorly executed but the goal is not to develop the lucrative ditch-digging sector. Trump and co want a revitalized US industrial sector - steel, semiconductors, assembly, machine-tools, rare-earths, manufacturing generally, petrochemicals... They dislike being dependant on foreign countries for anything and want everything made in America, even textiles and similar. Ideally in some high-tech, very productive factory like in the golden age of American industry but if not, they probably still would prefer low-tech industry to HR and 'professional services' industries or NGOs they think are working against them.

Then farmers will get some Made-in-America machine to scoop the tomatoes out of the ground.

If these existed then farmers would already be using them. Unless the argument is "illegals are so cheap no one bothers to invent them" but then why doesn't any other nation without infinite underpaid Guatemalans invent one?

And then if the logic is "american kids will be so expensive to hire it'll incentivise someone to invent a tomato scooping machine" 1) why hasn't anyone else already done this where labor is expensive and 2) is the price of food going up due to large wage increases just being handwaved away as "worth it"

Also my autism demands I point out that tomato's do not grow in the ground (sorry)

why hasn't anyone else already done this where labor is expensive

They have, Japan is famous for its strict immigration policy, expensive labor and high productivity from extreme levels of automation, including entirely automated farms that would be uneconomical in most other countries.

I appreciate the irony of saying this as they're experiencing rice shortages, but as far as I understand that's weather related.

Yes but they also import 60% of their calories which means they can focus on growing the 40% that's easiest to mechanize.

I will also note that Japan has some of the highest food costs in the OCED, at an index (avg=100, USA is at 94) of 126 in 2025.

Japan also doesn't seem to have great farm labor wages either

I was confusing tomatoes with other fruit-picking where there is a machine to scoop them up:

For example: https://x.com/TechInsider/status/1271322529362132994

I think that farmers (and businesses generally) are lazy and don't behave economically efficiently. It's creative destruction that raises efficiency, slowly and painfully. The British were notorious for not upgrading their machinery in the steel industry, you had steel chambers for early nuclear plants being forged in blast chambers designed for producing dreadnought armour, 40 years old. Or using gear they got from germany as war reparations from WW1 even in the 1960s and early 1970s! So the British steel industry got razed. It's basically gone. The German steel industry is going too but they did reap some counterintuitive gains from the wartime destruction meaning they had to rebuild and get leaner and smarter.

Capital investment and R&D is always good in my book.

A strawberry picker that's slow, isn't actually available and apparently works only on hydroponic berries? I think Juan Enrique still has his job. Maybe another 5-10 years it'll make a dent, assuming the product isn't entirely fake.

Tomatoes are indeed largely automatically harvested. The catch is... well, do you think a tomato you buy in the grocery store could stand up to what that robot is doing? Nope... those are tomatoes for processing, not for eating fresh.

Well the video is 5 years old so it might be here already. Juan losing his job because he's scared of ICE is an opportunity for mechanization that should be taken.

It's not, the product is still not available. Which makes me suspect "entirely fake".

AlexanderTurok, You claim that you are "anti third-worldism", but if that is true, why have you consistently aligning yourself with those who are trying to make the US more like a third-world country against those who want to make it great?

It wasn't MAGA that turned San Francisco into a fecese-strewn open-air drug market. It wasn't MAGA that worked behind the scenes to put a dementia patient in the Whitehouse. And it is not MAGA that has been marching in solidarity with HAMAS, shooting at federal officers, or trying to put a Communist in Gracie Mansion. It is your "Elite Human Capital" doing all of that.

The whole "Immigrants are just doing the jobs Americans wont do" is a blatant lie. There is no industry in these United States where the majority of workers and illegal/undocumented. Not even seasonal agriculture during the height of the Biden surge. The truth is "American don't want to do those jobs for those wages" and that is what this is (and has always been) about, wages.The Plantation owners don't want to pay the help, and once again the Democrats (who have always been the Party of the Plantation Owners) are threating civil war if they are not allowed to continue importing and exploiting thier non-citizen underclass.

against those who want to make it great?

Rhetorical question, if someone kept saying they wanted to be a good runner, but then repeatedly shot themselves in their foot with a gun (this is a fun mixed metaphor) despite insisting they were going to crush a marathon, what would you think about them?

Is that something you see happening?

The truth is "American don't want to do those jobs for those wages" and that is what this is (and has always been) about, wages.The Plantation owners don't want to pay the help, and once again the Democrats (who have always been the Party of the Plantation Owners)

I do not think that the democrats are the party of plantation owners these days.

Most D voters are living in urban centers, not on rural plantations. They care about cities, LGBT, social justice and so on. By contrast, I would imagine that most plantations and orchards are in rural states. Any rural states which vote reliably for the GOP -- which I imagine are quite a lot of them might simply not be worth catering to by the Dems on a federal level.

Also, if it was true, then it would have made sense for Trump to go after the illegal immigrants working on farms first, thereby depriving his political enemies of resources. What he did is the opposite: he explicitly spared the farm workers. This suggests to me that he needs the farm and plantation owners, who likely voted for him at least partly.

I think you're getting too hung up on the "rural" component and not paying enough attention to the economic.

The truth is "American don't want to do those jobs for those wages" and that is what this is (and has always been) about, wages.The Plantation owners don't want to pay the help, and once again the Democrats (who have always been the Party of the Plantation Owners) are once again threating civil war if they are not allowed to continue importing and exploiting thier non-citizen underclass.

Whenever committed ideological conservatives* hear about a minimum wage worker complaining about his low wage, they talk about productivity and demand curves and all that jazz. But mention that the worker is an illegal immigrant and all that logic goes out the window and he starts sounding like Bernie Sanders saying that the employer has infinite resources (to pay an American, not the illegal) and that only malevolence and greed stops the lowest-paid workers from getting 65$ an hour.

And even if the government could arbitrarily order wages to increase, why not order wages to increase for the better and cushier jobs Americans are more likely to do? Seems to me like it's a weird fantasy where Americans are supposed to work Bangladesh-level jobs (crop picking, textile sewing, etc) but get American wages for it because I guess the Bengali government is too stupid to just order wages to increase.

Also, most farmers vote Republican and the CSA constitution forbade the international slave trade.

*Not to be confused with normie GOP voters

You present this as an inconsistency, but it's actually two sides of the same system. Just like many other liberal dreams, the "minimal wage" system is only sustainable because it's not being consistently followed, but the parts that do not follow it are being hidden. So where it works nicely - i.e. some people getting more money from it - is is praised and lauded as "living wage", but where it requires a class of people living outside the law and subjected to all kinds of abuse, and where it makes such abuse the only possible way to conduct business, because you can't make your legal business compete on equal terms with a business that gets away with paying half as much to their workers illegally - this part is forgotten. The moral high horse standing of "living wage" can only ever stand on the basis of illegals being what they are now - because if they were inside the law and paid "living wages" and legal benefits too, the whole charade would collapse. The hypocrisy of the situation is by design. That's the thing that needs to be exposed over and over here.

Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves. There is no inconsistency here. People want to compete in the legal framework of their country, under the same laws. An army of scabs willing to work for less in shittier conditions (that would be illegal for any citizen) would depress the labor market.

It's only obvious to you because you aren't blessed with the worldliness of a mushroom.

Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves.

This reminds me of the "libertarian" on Twitter who thought "the government opening the border" was "statism."

  • -14

I'd be obliged if you wouldn't treat the Motte as some sort of twitter offshoot, where you pithily dismiss your opposition with short, one-line messages.

How do you think immigrant fruit pickers get so good at picking fruit, fast enough to do it for a living? They've been doing it since childhood. American children obviously can't do it (it's literally illegal for them to do so, child labor.) Why is a Mexican meatpacker hired over the American one? Is it because he is illegal and can't ask for breaks or agitate for a union because he'd be immediately turfed across the border?

You either are completely unaware of the reasons why illegal labor is hired, or you are aware, and are acting dumb. Either way, the manner of which you speak with such utter confidence on matters of which you know nothing is infuriating to an incredible degree. Your priors are wrong. The conclusions you derive from those priors are wrong. It's pointless to debate you because you utterly refuse to acknowledge anything that even resembles material reality.

An American worker cannot compete with a Mexican agricultural worker for the same reason he can't compete with a Chinese industrial factory worker: both work in conditions that are illegal in America! If your conclusion is 'let them work at the global median of worker's protection and compensation' then I would take a good look into a mirror and think on the morality of your politics: that is, if you still cast a reflection.

Thank you, for articulating what I was thinking, but likely would have gotten banned for saying because i would've been a lot less articulate or polite in doing so.

Meatpacking plants happily hire American citizens. It's just a shitty job, so staffing is always hard, so illegals get hired because they're used to shitty jobs.

Illegals and ex-cons. Apparently current-cons too; some meatpackers employ people on work programs from prisons, which is as close to slavery as you can get legally.

Ex-cons are often legally forced to work, too- employment is usually a condition of parole(which is probably most prison releases) and probation(which they usually wind up on).

There are certain jobs in America so shitty that they can get done by unfree labour(eg, out of the probation office- they are required to be employed) or by third worlders using the wage differential as the equivalent of working on an offshore rig, with no third option. Disproportionately, these are not jobs we can just do without(otherwise we probably would).

Why is a Mexican meatpacker hired over the American one?

Why are you beating your wife?

My whole contention here is that illegals are doing that work because both illegals and Americans do not want to do it but only the latter have the skills to do better jobs.

An American worker cannot compete with a Mexican agricultural worker for the same reason he can't compete with a Chinese industrial factory worker

Odd, then, that American workers make far more money than Chinese industrial factory workers or Mexican agricultural workers on either side of the border.

It's the woke left vs the woke right. The woke left demands affirmative action for blacks so they can work in business, law, medicine, and government. Envy is felt toward whites for their higher-paying and better jobs. "The test is culturally biased!" The woke right demands set-aside jobs for Americans so they can pick fruit in the summer sun, being envious of illegal aliens for some reason.

  • -12

Why do slaves pick cotton? It's obvious that they don't want to, and neither do white sharecroppers: but only the latter have the skills to do better jobs.

Answer: because slaves beat out sharecroppers because THEY HAVE A COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. THEIR LABOR IS CHEAPER. IT IS LITERALLY FREE.

YOU CANNOT COMPETE WITH FREE.

Do you know why American workers are paid more? It's because their aggregate productivity is higher. And because of this, the basket of goods they have to purchase to live makes WORKING AT SLAVE WAGES ECONOMICALLY UNTENABLE.

IF SOMEONE CAN WORK AT A TENTH OF YOUR WAGES, IT IS THE SAME THING AS COMPETING WITH FREE.

You know who picked the fruit before the influx of illegal immigrants? AMERICANS! Very poor Americans, but your countrymen (I'm assuming you are American). That an entire industry is sustained by the systematic violation of immigration law is no mere accident or economic inevitability. The only reason this perverse status quo exists is for the profit margins of corporations and the electoral schemes of bourgoise liberals.

Going back to having one's food picked by one's countrymen isn't the end of the world. The job isn't pleasant. But if it paid a livable wage, then Americans would do it. Americans will do many unpleasant things for the right kind of money. Just not for the pittance given to illegal aliens.

No doubt you have some sort of smart alecky answer to this post already prepared, but I will tell you now that you're not fooling anyone. You're being ratioed (a term that as a twitter addict, you are no doubt familiar with) into the ground because your arguments are bad. Whatever you're thinking you're gaining by pretending to be retarded is diminished by the fool you are making of yourself. Then, of course, is the retreat into sour grapes. You can tell yourself that we're all chuds and we're ganging up on you, that we're all woke rights no better than the ones on the left.

That isn't the case either. But believe what you want. It's a free country. People also believe in lizardmen and astrology. You do you.

slaves beat out sharecroppers

Assumes facts not in evidence.

You can tell yourself that we're all chuds

Not chuds. White collar guys, but IMO you've melted your brain with a political ideology that is all about justifying, sanewashing, and whataboutisming the views of the catturds of the world, in a parallel to how middle-class wokes justify, sanewash, and whatabout the dysfunction of the underclass.

Americans do not want to do it...

...for the wages being offered

That's my point.

AlexanderTurok, You claim that you are "anti third-worldism", but if that is true, why have you consistently aligning yourself with those who are trying to make the US more like a third-world country against those who want to make it great?

It wasn't MAGA that turned San Francisco into a fecese-strewn open-air drug market. It wasn't MAGA that worked behind the scenes to put a dementia patient in the Whitehouse. And it is not MAGA that has been marching in solidarity with HAMAS, shooting at federal officers, or trying to put a Communist in Gracie Mansion.

Good thing I haven't aligned with any of that.

  • -10

I'm not aware of Turok aligning himself with the radical left, although he clearly does not like Trump or the religious right.

A lot of those jobs being unusually terrible is historically contingent. Being jobs at all is historically contingent.

Much has been said about how low status it is to be a stay at home wife lately, but these are often the jobs being taken. It's nice and high status to have a Mexican maid clean one's house, hire a Guatemalan landscaper, get cheap ethnic take out, to just buy new clothing whenever there's a tear, and that all chickens come pre-plucked and gutted. Gardening, cooking, picking berries, and sewing are not necessarily good candidates for industrialization. Mass produced strawberries and chicken was probably a mistake.

Also, bras are a terrible undergarment for fat women. Bring back the chemise and stays.

Also, bras are a terrible undergarment for fat women. Bring back the chemise and stays.

Bring back thin/fit/toned women. Make waist great again.

Did I strawman the Right? Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:

This is exactly why we have the rule,

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible. General groups include things like gun rights activists, pro-choice groups, and environmentalists. Specific groups include things like The NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the Sierra Club. Posting about general groups is often not falsifiable, and can lead to straw man arguments and non-representative samples.

Making top level posts "responding" to specific users without using the "reply" button instead is kind of obnoxious, but this is downright antagonistic:

I expect that @RandomRanger will withdraw his claim

Don't do that. Ideally, unless you think someone would like to get an alert from you, don't @ them.

If you want to talk about what Lori Chavez-DeRemer thinks and why it is stupid, or not stupid, or whatever, like... have at! And really, there are contexts where referencing "Left" and "Right" is fine, where it would be stilted or misleading to speak differently. But you have been moderated several times in a fairly short period, mostly for antagonism, and you seem to be making kind of a hobby horse of weak manning "the Right" or some portion of it you perceive as worthy of scorn. I don't know if you're subtly pursuing a kind of consensus, or if you're just trolling, but you don't seem to be here to move past shady thinking and test your ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases.

Do better. Next time I see you pulling this, you get a ban.

This part:

This is exactly why we have the rule,

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible.

Is ridiculously selectively applied, e.g. basically any time people use "the establishment" as a foil they're guilty of this, but they don't get modhatted. As it stands, the rule is merely another cudgel to use against people making left-leaning arguments, although in this case I don't think an unbiased application of this rule would be particularly good either. It just makes it clunky to talk about subsets of a group that believe in specific ideas that might not be shared among the whole group.

Though I do agree the "I expect that RandomRanger will withdraw his claim" is fairly presumptuous here.

What you're underappreciating is that @AlexanderTurok is basically getting modded for being annoying.

Which is the right thing to do. Turok knows what he's doing; he's obviously a smart guy and would otherwise be a valuable contributor were it not for the needless sardonicism.

You are right that there are users here, notably @WhiningCoil, who consistently adopt the most uncharitable framing of their opponents' arguments, but they do it in a less annoying way.

Any time anybody uses "the establishment" you are free to ask who they mean specifically. Most of the people using the word here actually have specific answers.

Is ridiculously selectively applied, e.g. basically any time people use "the establishment" as a foil they're guilty of this, but they don't get modhatted. As it stands, the rule is merely another cudgel to use against people making left-leaning arguments

The difference being that "the establishment" is meant to specify the criticism to the people with actual power, rather than generalize to everyone who might hold a particular view, and expecting them to defend it. For example, even though you call yourself "The Antipopulist" I would not lump you in with the establishment, and I would not demand that you, personally, defend the establishment's more controversial views and actions (unless there's something we don't know about you, and your position in mainstream institutions).

As for the claim that moderation has become asymmetrical in an anti-left direction, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but you're not helping. You listed several examples of "bad posts" the last time this was brought up, and while I can agree there was something bad about them in that they contained heat that could be taken out to leave more light, you went on to defend posts that were much, much worse, and you're continuing to do so here. One of your examples was "outgroup politicians are 'foreign agents'", but the actual post is much closer to "Ilhan Omar is a foreign agent".

Like I said, I don't even mind having Turok around, he's mostly an asset for people like me. The only downside of his presence would actually affect people on the left than people on the right - his tone is contagious. You said you want moderation applied equally to everyone, well if he gets to post the way he post, and the same standard gets applied to the median motteposter, the level of aggression on this forum is going to rise substantially, and the quality of discussion is going to drop, and you'll again be distraught about how much the right-wingers are getting away with.

I don't get your point about "the establishment" in this particular context. Why does it matter if they have power (real or perceived) in regards to whether it's a specific or general group. Most people, even politicians, don't see themselves as "establishment". For some people, Trump as POTUS is the epitome of "establishment". For others, calling him that word is utterly ludicrous. Note that I personally think it's fine for people to attack "the establishment" -- I'm opposed to this rule in general.

And I'm not defending his post wholesale -- I agree the last bit is presumptuous and I'm fine with him being given a warning for something like that. I don't think throwing the gauntlet to someone like this is really that bad, but maybe I'm in the minority on that. I think personal attacks are far worse for productive conversations, which happen regularly and don't get punished (or even become AAQCs!) as long as it's someone with a right-wing opinion attacking someone with a left-wing opinion.

I also have some reservations with how it seems like a final warning from stuff like his previous post which didn't deserve a mod action at all.

I don't get your point about "the establishment" in this particular context. Why does it matter if they have power (real or perceived) in regards to whether it's a specific or general group.

It doesn't, I was just saying what a defining characteristic of a group called "the establishment" is. Who identifies as, and who doesn't, who exactly that group includes, etc., doesn't really matter, the point is that anti-establishmentarians don't get to come here, pick the most ridiculous thing said or done by the powers that be, and demand that posters roughly identifying as centrists or "anti populists" defend it as though they have a personal stake in it.

And I'm not defending his post wholesale -- I agree the last bit is presumptuous

I also have some reservations with how it seems like a final warning from stuff like his previous post which didn't deserve a mod action at all.

If you think that's the main problem with that specific post is presumptuousness, or if you think the final warning is result of his previous post only, you're not approaching this in an objective manner. The issue is his constant antagonism.

Under the other post you claim you don't want moderation to aggregate transgressions by ideology, and adjust for that, but rather that you want the same enforcement no matter who the transgression is coming from. I believe this is mostly (adjusted for the mods being only human) what you're getting. You're not going to find another poster exhibiting the same pattern of constant antagonism, which I think you were aware of when you pushed back against my request for examples.

Also, if you think Turok is no worse than the average posters here, and is only getting modded because of rightwing bias, why do you think he got banned from ACX and DSL?

I think personal attacks are far worse for productive conversations, which happen regularly and don't get punished (or even become AAQCs!)

Specifically, which AAQC had a personal attack? Gattsuru's? Can you quote the part that contains the personal attack?

I think it’s fair to say that nobody proposes that Americans are jumping at the chance to do the worst possible jobs.

You have people who accept that jobs like fruit-picking and taking care of incontinent elderly people need to be automated or done by sufficiently-incentivised Americans because the alternative is endless mass-immigration as each new set of second-generation immigrants refuses to do the scut work their parents came to do.

You also have people who believe that some of the jobs being done by immigrants are perfectly decent, okay-paying jobs that Americans are being priced out of or excluded from. Semi-skilled factory labour. Coding.

I appreciate your going and looking for an actual quote but DeRemer’s phrasing is very vague. I suspect she’s talking about the latter category, and your analysis of the rest of the interview seems to confirm that. I certainly think that

sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain

is not upheld by the quote, though she may think it in private. Regardless, who do you think is actually going to do these jobs? Do you think that America can continue to rely on illegal labour to do these jobs for the next 50 years without serious consequences? 100?

I think it’s fair to say that nobody proposes that Americans are jumping at the chance to do the worst possible jobs.

There was a lot of noise on X about this article from last month. Specifically, a lot of anti-immigration people were quoting the first paragraph as proof that Americans were indeed eager to do the dirty jobs that illegals do now:

Every seat in the waiting area of Glenn Valley Foods was occupied with people filling out job applications early Thursday afternoon, two days after the meatpacking plant became the center of the largest worksite immigration raid in the state of Nebraska so far this year.

The second paragraph was not included:

Dozens of prospective employees, many of them Spanish speakers, had been coming in and out of the plant all day. Some were hoping to land a new job; others were coming in for training.

I assume that what's going to happen across the country is illegal Hispanics being replaced with legal Hispanics if mass deportations actually happen.

Man, meatpacking plants are the most diverse place I've ever been around. Spanish is definitely the main language, but English might not be #2- it's probably vying with a half dozen south and southeast Asian tongues. Only places I've ever been around where the white and black Americans stick together in contrast to the other groups have been meatpacking plants.

Only places I've ever been around where the white and black Americans stick together in contrast to the other groups have been meatpacking plants.

Construction sites as well, at least where I live.

Hmm, yes, I see.

There are reasons to “uplift the in-group” and you need to articulate why this is an innoble goal in and of itself. They are citizens; they have more in common with you if you are a wealthy white person; for evolutionary reasons, it is natural to have an interest in uplifting those that are similar to yourself; for reasons of national security, you do not want so many citizens who believe that the American project is not worth investing in; they may have a higher IQ than Hondurans; they may have different levels of compassion or a different taste in aesthetics which may be informed by genetics.

Is there any wonder high-income whites are moving away from the Republican Party

College-educated White males lean toward Trump. It’s just women who shifted a lot toward Harris.

Working-class whites, too, don't want their sons working casual labor

This may have something to do with the millions of migrants brought in to undercut wages, the exact thing we’re talking about. No, you can’t ever compete with them, because —

  • Remittance payments mean that they can afford a higher quality life while temporarily living a lower quality life in America

  • They are raised with values that are de-socialized by our ridiculous mandatory education culture, and this isn’t the kind of thing you can arbitrarily re-socialize at will

  • They often live in illegal accommodations, requiring less funds, and these require a network that natives aren’t a part of

  • They live within a culture where the women expect to marry laborers

I’m also not sure if you’re agreeing with him that it would increase wages, and just disagree that this is important, or if you think it won’t increase wages.

They often live in illegal accommodations, requiring less funds, and these require a network that natives aren’t a part of

You, as a white American, can find these illegal accommodations really easily. Craigslist has some of them listed, but you can also just go to the back of a restaurant kitchen and ask.

Illegals are preferred to the native underclass partly because they cost less, but much more because they just cause less trouble, and the standard of living difference isn't the main driver of the cost difference- the native underclass uses their extra income over illegals for drugs, not better food or accommodations(and illegals probably make up for their lower hourly rate by working longer hours anyways).

Do you think that the Honduran or Mexican illegal tenant housing advertises their roommate openings in Craigslist, in English? No. This is absurd to believe. Especially not around farming operations.

The point was you can get significantly below market(and priced to match) housing really easily. You don't need to be plugged into the wetback network, and roustabouts are not known for their robust network building anyways. Go ask around at waffle house. Look on craigslist. The white trash underclass lives in very similar conditions, after all. Non underclass whites don't do this, but that's because they don't want to.

There's this motte conceit that you can't live like the other half. Yeah, you can, and pretty easily too.

So your answer to the question of how White Americans can compete with semi-slave illegal workers is

  • Go ask around a Waffle House

  • Look around on Craigslist for illegal housing

  • (Ignore remittance payments)

  • (Ignore cultural and early life influences involving manual labor, eg that some of these Hondurans have been doing it since 12)

  • (Ignore crucial cultural factors related to social wellbeing like finding a wife)

Middle class whites should not plan on doing crappy grunt work for a living. A certain amount of unfair labor practices is necessary to keep a society running and as far as I'm concerned a few Oaxacans and Hondurans are a win-win way to get that done. We don't need to import millions of welfare cases and deliveroo drivers but turning a blind eye to some construction and agriculture workers of questionable legality is better for everyone.

The underclass already lives a very similar lifestyle, just more degenerate. It would be great if they could be forced to do more work and less drugs, I just have little faith in their ability to do so(we're several generations past the point at which people who are willing to do work instead of drugs stop being poor in this country).

White non-underclass youths that want to make something of themselves usually do; they go from digging ditches for a plumber to assisting the plumber laying pipe to being a plumber themselves. I don't see the problem unless it's with 'there are Hispanics in the vicinity'.

The Middle Class already does crappy work for a living. I don’t think farming is grunt work — if I had a choice I would sooner enslave the financiers than the farmers. I would rather import Chinese and Indians to take the jobs of White financiers than the farmers, because that is truly innoble work. The Western Christian legacy is considering this work as innoble, as beneath human dignity. Even programming demeans humanity more than “picking fruit”. Look at how they write on Twitter. They are halfways to the singularity and I pray that their wishes come sooner and they become fully machine.

a few Oaxacans and Hondurans

Right, it’s obviously an incredibly larger amount than this which can easily make the White population dwindle to 5% by the end of the millenia.

better for everyone

Not at all. Actually, there’s a good argument to be made that deportations could increase all the wages of the lower middle class. But if we’re really basing things off of “better for everyone” we need to talk about waste among the .1% income level.

I don’t think farming is grunt work

It is, whether you think so or not, which is why historically when people got the chance they fled the farms for horrible factory jobs.

I don't see any reason it would be "innoble" or "beneath human dignity", but it's backbreaking.

More comments

So your answer to the question of how White Americans can compete with semi-slave illegal workers is

Why in God's name would you want to?

As I keep saying, the conditions required to 'keep farms running so we can stock the shelves with a variety of produce' are not great, and first worlders will not do it without compulsion(or, I suppose, being deluded into halfway doing this for brief periods of time on partyfarms). Likewise lots of heavy construction labor etc.

Americans should mow their own lawns, watch their own children, etc. But the idea that we can replace illegal migrants and roustabouts with middle class whites is farcical. Manual laborers are by definition not middle class, at least when they're doing temporary grunt work.

Americans should mow their own lawns

Eh, f--- that, I've got hay fever.

College-educated White males lean toward Trump.

Very narrowly:

Education by gender among White voters

White college graduate men: Harris 48%, Trump 50%

It’s just women who shifted a lot toward Harris.

No, women shifted towards Trump compared to 2020, as did almost every group. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, white non-evangelicals with college degrees and even white non-evangelicals without college degrees supported Biden by a wide margin. These two groups, and notably Hispanics, shifted dramatically towards Trump in 2024 because of immigration + inflation. Had Biden not been so tremendously incompetent - and we can't dismiss that the incompetence, especially with respect to immigration, wasn't deliberate - the Democrats may have won.

Elections are very close affairs. Historical precedent suggests that the same voters flip flop every four years. Take immigration; less than 50% of Republicans are now in favor of decreasing immigration, down from 88% last year.

White Americans are an incredibly inviting people when it comes to immigration.

Historical precedent suggests that the same voters flip flop every four years.

This is a bit of a quibble, but actually it’s more like voters come in and out of participation, but the numbers usually balance out in such a way so as to appear that the same voters switch every time. Longitudinally, the number of individual voters who regularly change their mind is pretty low. But yes, elections are close, so they can still matter, but overall they aren’t the kingmaker. What IS true is that these movements in and out of participation are still downstream from persuasion, and tend to jive with mind-changers. So the general idea still holds.

In 2020 to 2024, for instance, although the chart doesn’t show candidate breakdowns, you can see Figure 43 from this report that about half of voters are consistent but the other half is made up of about 3 even-ish groups: new entrants, dropouts, and midterm-skippers.

When talking about Biden, this summarization basically says that 2024 Democrats had both a turnout and persuasion problem, but turnout alone wouldn’t have reversed the loss (so functionally it is still persuasion, which is exactly how you want the elections to work)

EDIT: will further point out that reading the second link provides compelling evidence that the pro-Trump shift, 2020 to 2024, was driven more by men than women, although both groups shifted that direction. We're talking 10% and 2% changes, going by Pew numbers.

Thanks. I was going off my vague recollection of these kinds of articles:

In a 2021 interview about their book Trump's Democrats, Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields noted that many Obama–Trump voters likewise voted for Trump in the 2020 election, in some counties in even larger numbers than in 2016. Muravchik and Shields assessed that these "flipped" Democrats would continue to be a key factor in future elections.

In the 2016 and 2020 elections, white non-evangelicals with college degrees and even white non-evangelicals without college degrees supported Biden by a wide margin

The arbitrary filtering of one of the largest religious groups is silly. The shift to D is mostly among women, not the men. If you’re like me, and think politics should be reserved for the male-brained, women shifting D after a media propaganda blitz that utilized emotional propaganda about victimhood is not at all persuasive in regards to any trend that matters.

less than 50% of Republicans are now in favor of decreasing immigration, down from 88% last year.

This question doesn’t tell us anything, because it is in regards to the “present level of immigration”, under Trump who has been (at least presenting himself as) deporting illegals. The average has no idea that the country plans to import so many Indians. The average voter has no idea about the statistics related to yearly immigration, like, at all. You’re asking them about vibes. Shame on Gallop here.

The arbitrary filtering of one of the largest religious groups is silly.

Why? You're the one who filtered down to "college-educated White males" after Turok claimed that high-income whites are moving away from the Republicans, and I'm pointing out that college-educated white men are not only almost evenly split between D and R, but also that more granular data shows divisions among white men based on religious affiliation + level of education, which is relevant for determining how white men are going to vote in the future.

I'm not denying that women are more likely to be leftist in the present era (not historically), but you were wrong when you said women shifted "a lot" towards Harris.

The average has no idea that the country plans to import so many Indians. The average voter has no idea about the statistics related to yearly immigration, like, at all.

I have found that the same people who argue that the United States has been transformed demographically to the point that even small towns are no longer recognizable also say that Americans are ignorant about the scope of immigration.

I don't buy that. I think anyone with a pair of eyes and ears is aware that the U.S. is more linguistically, religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse than it has ever been. So yeah, the Gallup poll and every other immigration-related poll is asking people about "vibes", and the "vibes" are that the average voter is cool with the continuing diversification of America.

The average has no idea that the country plans to import so many Indians.

Sure, but this probably doesn't help your argument because the average person likely overestimates how many Indians there:

When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%).

White Americans probably think there are way more Indians than there are and they're still going to elect Vivek Ramaswamy as the next governor of Ohio.

Off topic, but I kind of wonder how the racial estimate question might change if you gave people a slider that forces all the percentages to sum to 100

If you polled a white person, maybe 50% white, 30% black, 20% everyone else.

If you polled a black person, maybe 80% white, 10% black, 10% everyone else.

the U.S. is more linguistically, religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse than it has ever been.

I don't know about that. In the past there were entire states which mostly didn't speak English(Lousiana and New Mexico have both had governments that did not operate in English).

I think it really just turns on what you consider "diversity". Obviously and famously past Americans considered Germans and Irish and such as contextually diverse in all four of those senses, while today we would probably not say the same of their descendants. I'm sure you could take a stab at some rough numbers about what it might have been over time if you used diversity "in context" for contemporaries, but that would probably be pretty difficult and subjective. Still, I like the instinct here, because it does always annoy me when we hear the similar idea about "division" being the worst it's ever been when the country literally fought a civil war before.

Linguistic and religious diversity might be exceptions, though. This article has a few stats for language that implies it was higher even (or especially) at the Founding, although also worth a side-note that the voting percentages would have been different to some extent. In terms of religious diversity that's also tricky - how do you count "religiously unaffiliated" and its various flavors? I don't really think a fair historical comparison is possible, and I guess you could try, but I won't.

There are reasons to “uplift the in-group” and you need to articulate why this is an innoble goal in and of itself

I never said it was. I think uplifting the in-group by getting them jobs sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain is pathetic.

They are raised with values that are de-socialized by our ridiculous mandatory education culture, and this isn’t the kind of thing you can arbitrarily re-socialize at will

The fundamental difference between me and you is that I like white people more, which extends to liking first-world societies that white people built. I'm not concerned that these Guatemalans coming across the border are going to out-compete whites because they have a "better" culture.

  • -13

I'm not concerned that these Guatemalans coming across the border are going to out-compete whites because they have a "better" culture.

There are many grounds on which a person can compete. "I'm cheaper because I ignore all employment, construction and safety laws and regulations" is certainly a niche, but it's not a given that it's a niche we ought to tolerate.

Its really hard to believe that you or anyone would actually hold this position.

if you are as racist as you claim, then surely you would prefer to live in a place where all jobs were done by white people, if only because it would mean that you would only have to interact with white people. But instead your position is that for abstract reasons, it offends you to allow white people to do manual labor, so its better to import brown people to do it, even though it means that you and your friends and family have to interact with brown people all the time? And you now risk brown people becoming a meaningful voting block in your society that can never be expunged. Like it would be one thing if you said you were in favor of the migrant work laws used by UAE and not america, or you like rhodesia, but your position doesn't seem to be divided like that. Those of us who live in the modern west, live in the modern west. Is you position based on a fictional alternate reality?

Your position seems really counterintuitive. I strongly suspect you are lying because your stated beliefs and policies are so wildly out of sync with each other - when taking into account the real world as it exists now.

if you are as racist as you claim, then surely you would prefer to live in a place where all jobs were done by white people, if only because it would mean that you would only have to interact with white people. But instead your position is that for abstract reasons, it offends you to allow white people to do manual labor, so its better to import brown people to do it, even though it means that you and your friends and family have to interact with brown people all the time?

Without anti-discrimination law people would be able to choose whether or how much they want to interact with brown people.

And you now risk brown people becoming a meaningful voting block in your society that can never be expunged.

A reasonable concern. But it's worth looking at the impact on America so far. In Florida and Texas, the majority of Hispanics voted for Trump. Hispanics nationally still voted slightly more often for Democrats, but if you account for the fact that Hispanics are more likely to support centrist than far-left Dems, (just look at the melanin content of a pride rally or a DSA meeting) it doesn't seem like they're moving America to the left at all.

I think uplifting the in-group by getting them jobs sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain is pathetic.

Why? It works incredibly well for China, who has seen consistent gains in QoL. It worked well throughout the history of the West. Sewing bras is more conducive to wellbeing than stacking them on a shelf. Picking fruit is so Edenic that it’s the first recorded activity of humanity. In what world would “picking fruit” be pathetic? I think you are having trouble dissociating the image you have of these things now, with what they would look like if employers didn’t have a semi-slave class. There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people. They work quite hard, then they drink in the evenings and dance and fuck and make music and so on. This is exactly what agricultural work was for nearly all of history. Not for the slaves, of course, but for the non-enslaved.

I'm not concerned that these Guatemalans coming across the border are going to out-compete whites because they have a "better" culture.

Well you ignored all of my points regarding this. If I also ignored all of the points I would agree with you.

Picking fruit is so Edenic that it’s the first recorded activity of humanity

Brother if this is your imagination of piecework farm labor you should go on YouTube and see what it's like

If it were viable to employ illegal workers as baristas, you would be shocked at how horrible the QoL for baristas is too. Have you seen how bad the QoL is for soldiers? It’s because they don’t have a choice!

Wow, horrible, picking berries. They are performing literally the same physical movements that a grocery stocker performs, except the objects are lighter, they aren’t breathing in microplastics all day, the ground beneath them isn’t concrete, they don’t hear horrible pop music 24/7… how could anyone do this?

Sewing bras is more conducive to wellbeing than stacking them on a shelf.

Then buy yourself a sewing machine. We shouldn't make national policy choices based on psychological theories like that.

In what world would “picking fruit” be pathetic? I think you are having trouble dissociating the image you have of these things now, with what they would look like if employers didn’t have a semi-slave class. There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people. They work quite hard, then they drink in the evenings and dance and fuck and make music and so on. This is exactly what agricultural work was for nearly all of history.

We should make national policy decisions based on the projected wellbeing of citizens. That would include the psychological theories of Csikszentmihalyi, which shows that certain occupational activities are more conducive to happiness.

I'm going to push back on this- no doubt you can get some heiresses to work on the partyfarm, but agricultural work is sufficiently terrible that it requires non-free or at least desperate labor to get done in sufficient quantities. Guatemalans, convicts, helots, the corvee- this is who's always done heavy farm work.

Now operating machines is fun and sexy and high status, so mechanization changes that, but some farming will probably never be mechanized. The alternative to strawberry pickers from Chiapas is either a) enslaved strawberry pickers[in America, these would probably be prisoners] or b) not having strawberries. Now migrant labor doesn't have to change the demographics of the country- we could send them back to Honduras or Oaxaca or wherever to enjoy their pay in a much lower cost of living locale when the season is over- but let's be real here, America isn't going to do the smart thing.

we could send them back to Honduras or Oaxaca or wherever to enjoy their pay in a much lower cost of living locale when the season is over

We make up for it by importing infinitely Indian """students""" but in Canada we actually do a great job at this with migrant harvest workers

They're actually super dialled, farmers will compete to hire back the most productive squads of Ecuadorian peach harvesters, etc. They basically noodle around NA/SA following the various harvest seasons.

requires non-free or at least desperate labor to get done in sufficient quantities

What is your excuse for why China is able to do it while having a one standard deviation higher median IQ over America? Even Japan does not utilize as many foreign laborers as America.

China has many people who are far more desperate than America for similar reasons to Mexico(it's a middle income country with high income inequality), and also doesn't have full freedom of movement. People who have the option to be laborers in cities will prefer that to being agricultural laborers.

Then consider Japan, which only employs 50k migrants in its agricultural and forestry sector.

People who have the option to be laborers in cities will prefer that to being agricultural laborers

And if there is an absence of agricultural workers, the wages for agriculture go up, meaning the conditions become as desirable as WWOOFing, meaning people return to work in agriculture.

the wages for agriculture go up

Americans famously love when the price of consumer goods go up

Also Japan imports 60% of its calories

More comments

What is your excuse for why China is able to do it while having a one standard deviation higher median IQ over America?

They likely don't; all those rural laborers don't show up in the IQ stats because they don't take the tests.

And the Japanese? How about the Japanese in the 80s?

Japan imports a massive amount of food. This would be pretty dumb for the US to do, considering the massive amount of farmland we have.

(I believe the US is a net food importer by dollars, but not by calories)

More comments

There’s a farm near me where people — college-educated, white, smart — sign up to plant and reap for free. Because in return they get free room and board, and most importantly a social environment filled with other young white people.

Are they willing to do it for a living, or is it just a fun summertime activity with friends? Is this something they do on the weekend outside of work? I assume they have other jobs, unless they're wealthy enough to have retired already, in which case they're extreme outliers.

I find it hard to believe that college-educated people, regardless of race, would cover even a small portion of the necessary workforce on Americans farms.

They do it for years at a time. It’s called WWOOFing. Lots of the scions of high human capital humans do it.

Perhaps you find it hard to believe because, like the person above, you can’t imagine that QoL and wages for farmwork will increase if the semi-slave laborers are deported. When conditions improve, more people will be willing to do it, and more places will look like WWOOFing.

Thanks for the acronym, but you have not demonstrated that wide-scale WWOOFing (we gotta come up with a better name, right?) is a sufficient replacement for the food needs of 300,000,000 Americans.

I have some observations and questions after browsing the WWOOF website.

  1. How long does the average WWOOFer WWOOF for? Are they willing to settle down on a farm for 20+ years?

  2. It looks like WWOOFers work on small organic farms. Can WWOOFing really be scaled to meet the needs of a giant industrial nation?

  3. The average WWOOFer looks like a gender studies major from a liberal arts college. Most of the people who sign up for this type of thing would almost certainly be against mass deportations.

  4. From most of the testimonials I've been reading, WWOOFing seems more like interning on a homestead than working on a for-profit farm. The farms that WWOOFers volunteer on are producing food just for themselves, not the community.

  5. "Lots of the scions of high human capital humans do it." Lots of leftist women, it looks like. Which is fine, but your original comment made this sound like something different, at least to me.

In sum, WWOOFing seems exactly like the kind of thing that idealistic, liberal, young women do during college to feel "closer to nature" before they graduate and shop at Whole Foods for the rest of their lives.

I think it's much more likely that illegal Hispanics will be replaced with legal Hispanics if mass deportations actually happen.

My comment on WWOOF was made to argue that White people — even some of the pristine “human capital” that sociopaths autists certain people value over others — are willing to do genuinely difficult farming for long hours when the social conditions are right. One WWOOFer I know is the son of two high-powered lawyers. I know someone who runs a place and she’s a very intelligent pianist. They would never in a million years do it if they were only around Hondurans who barely spoke English, and if there were zero breaks and harsh foremen watching them. Just like, in the South, not many White people were willing to “compete” with slaves in agricultural work.

Re 1: WWOOF is usually done for many months at a time, probably no more than a year at a time, but you have WWOOFers who do it for 5+ years along different locations as a way to travel for free. Why wouldn’t agricultural work look more like WWOOFing in the absence of a semi-slave class? Do the Chinese working in agriculture today have the same conditions as 1950? Of course not, because wages and benefits have increased. Really we’re just asking, “how badly can we get away with reducing QoL for the poorest using semi-slave labor” which is the wrong question to ask in the face of Jeff Bezoses.

Re 4: I know one place that sells lots of their products at a local market. I know another which is a kind of co-op farm where local people “invest” in a portion of the crops. I am probably describing this poorly.

I am not saying that WWOOFing is the future, I am saying that agricultural work will look more like WWOOFing in the absence of semi slave labor.

Yes, you can charm white liberal arts major women into doing farming for a few months at a time, and there will always be guys showing up to agglomerations of naive and easy women. But if hippie communes were able to compete with migrant worker driven industrial agriculture they'd be doing it; there's certainly enough market for organic goods.

More comments

are willing to do genuinely difficult farming for long hours when the social conditions are right.

WWOOFing is just the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps. Americans are willing to travel to dangerous third world countries to do backbreaking work for a year or longer, with the understanding that they're going to return to America and resume their normal lives. The vast majority of WWOOFers and Peace Corps volunteers are not going to pick strawberries or build houses in Guatemala as a career.

I am saying that agricultural work will look more like WWOOFing in the absence of semi slave labor.

I doubt it, mostly because WWOOFing is in no way a substitute for the large-scale industrial farming necessary to feed a wealthy nation of 300,000,000 people. It'll be mostly legal Hispanics and Asians, and hopefully some white and black people as well, who take over the jobs from the illegals.

Illegal immigrant jobs have high turnover, I think, not withstanding the seasonality of the work. Someone doesn’t usually work in an Amazon warehouse for more than 2/3 months and I’ve talked to logistics companies who said that it’s difficult to get drivers to stick around (immigration status unknown).

So you want a serf/slave class of the "inferior" brown people because such jobs are below the dignity of the "superior" white people (never mind that white people all over the world used to, and still do, such jobs). We needn't be afraid that the browns will do anything, because we should (as the superiors) ensure they have no rights apart from being cheap disposable labour until robots can do the job and hence they will be debarred from polluting our culture due to not being able to influence it, and we shouldn't encourage white people to pick up the slack by doing these low-class jobs because such jobs are only fit for low-class people and we don't want low-class white trash, that reflects poorly on our superiority.

All white people will be middle-middle to upper-middle to upper-class, doing high-status jobs for Elite Human Capital because we are so much better, and all the shitty (literally) jobs will be done by the inferior brown people until the AI-powered robots take over.

Am I right? Because I'm blessed if I can understand in any other way the points you are darkly hinting at.

So you want a serf/slave class of the "inferior" brown people because such jobs are below the dignity of the "superior" white people (never mind that white people all over the world used to, and still do, such jobs). We needn't be afraid that the browns will do anything, because we should (as the superiors) ensure they have no rights apart from being cheap disposable labour until robots can do the job and hence they will be debarred from polluting our culture due to not being able to influence it, and we shouldn't encourage white people to pick up the slack by doing these low-class jobs because such jobs are only fit for low-class people and we don't want low-class white trash, that reflects poorly on our superiority.

I don't agree with "no rights apart from being cheap disposable labour." All their negative rights should be respected, though not "rights" to collect welfare or anything like that. The issue is not specifically racial. I don't think anyone should aspire to those kinds of occupations, nor romanticize or fetishize them.

I don't think anyone should aspire to those kinds of occupations, nor romanticize or fetishize them.

And yet the work has to be done, and we don't yet have the robots to do it. All the unglamorous necessary toil to support civilisation.

I'm confused as to what your claim was. I found a banned comment of yours stating that

The new narrative on the Online Right is that there's a huge mass of white men without jobs who have no choice but to inject fentanyl because of "the border" and free trade sending the factories to China.

It seems like @RandomRanger quoted it accurately enough, but source quote you provide in this comment is only very weak Bayesian evidence for this claim.

In fact, the quote you provide is much more consistent with the claim that "Republicans see class instead of race, and migrants fleeing opens up jobs traditionally taken by lower/working class citizens." No need for extra drug epicycles at all.

I may add here that the above classic Republican claim is consistent with where migrants work, but unemployment in those sectors is going up faster than elsewhere, so clearly the story is more complex.

Did I strawman the Right?

Yup.

Let's ask Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the United States secretary of labor:

Unless Lore Chavez-DeRemer has put on an unprecedented amount of weight in the last 48 hours, no one should confuse her for the mass of tens of millions of people that could be considered 'the Right.' The volume of space alone would be magnitudes off.

As such, attempting to use her as a proxy of tens of millions of people is a strawman, absent compelling evidence the views of those tens of millions are accurately represented by her.

how the Trump administration is increasing apprenticeships. Of course, few illegals do those high-skilled jobs,

Apprentices mostly are doing low-skill construction work that illegals also do until they’ve learnt enough to be useful helping a full tradesman. Trades jobs do require some training and when the norm is that that training is paid then they’re going to be trained by doing useful but low-skill work. Apprentice plumbers do some digging.

"mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts..."

Do you think DeRemer sees MAGA voters as a mass of white unemployed drug addicts?

You do seem to nail it on the sewing bras etc...

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