site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   24971 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 1, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A lot of people, when asked for example of when something happened, do not immediately reach for an example where there's no information available whether something happened or not, and present it as their example of something happening. Because if they do it, other people might conclude they really do not have any better examples.

since ICE hasn't commented at all on it

I guess this report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/cannabis-farm-worker-in-california-dies-day-after-chaotic-federal-immigration-raid.html saying:

George Retes complied with federal officers when he arrived to check on friends and colleagues who might have been affected by the raids, but instead he was arrested on suspicion of assault, according to immigration officials.

is just my hallucination? Or they lied claiming immigration officials told him that? Why, in your opinion, CNBC would lie about something like that, and what is your source for accusing them of lying in this case? How do you know ICE hasn't actually commented even though CNBC claims they did?

That same article also claims "Immigration officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

At some point according to this paywalled CNN article, DHS (in the person of assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin, not anyone from ICE) said the arrest was for "alleged assault".

So, the current theory is the DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin was lying and he wasn't actually arrested for suspicion of assault? Or you are ready to admin that your example has nothing to do with ICE errors and you are 0:2 as far as supporting your claims with evidence goes?

My theory is he was arrested because he was there and "suspicion of assault" was a post-facto invention to cover a bad arrest.

And no, regardless of this I am still right about Abrego Garcia; he was certainly initially deported to the wrong place.

There's a huge difference between somebody being a legal alien worker and being mistakenly deported as illegal and somebody being definitely an illegal with a final removal order who gets their lawyer to declare the entire Western hemisphere is itching to torture him, activist judges playing along because nobody can ever be deported no matter why, and ICE needing to find some country that is not on the list lawyers managed to push through. I mean, we have to follow the law, and that at times includes tolerating lawyer tricks that everybody knows are tricks, because that's the only way to make the process work at scale, but conflating these two situations is bullshit. There's nothing in common between Garcia - who is definitely illegal alien and no court doubts that - and some hypothetical situation where ICE thinks a legal alien or a citizen is illegal. These are two completely different things.

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