site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29345 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Federal officials enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act were returning people to slavery. ICE agents are returning people to Mexico. If you're going to have such a precious little time making the comparison, it would help if the two were comparable in some way.

They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

  • -30

No, that's not clear at all.

"Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.".

It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out, but taking your argument at face value - are you arguing for something to the effect of "A (enforcing the FSA) is immoral, and B (preventing federal agents from enforcing it) was an appropriate reaction to it; therefore if C (enforcing immigration restrictions) is immoral, then B is likewise an appropriate reaction to it"? In that case, setting A=9/11, B=the commando raid on Osama's compound, C=illegal immigration, under the reasonable assumption that the majority of US citizens agree that A and C are immoral and B was an appropriate reaction to A, are you arguing for commando raids to kill all illegal immigrants (and/or even those involved in planning their immigration)?

It's unfortunate that it seems like you have chosen to flame out

What does this mean? Is disagreeing with the motte hive-mind "flaming out"? I thought that was the point of this website.

He has been transparently trolling across about a dozen comments over hours in flagrant violation of site discussion rules. Users have been asking him pointed questions clearly and politely and he has been deliberately obtuse and made no effort to discuss aside from low-effort snide dismissals

Ah

I mean to be honest people have been responding to me with somewhat obtuse responses and I note ZERO responses across any of my comments as to why enforcing immigration laws but explicitly ignoring farms and hotels doesn't undermine the whole project so it's not just him avoiding discussions he doesn't feel like having

I shared the sense of other posters that he was arguing to inflame/grandstand rather than to either explain or understand, which often presages a dramatic departure and certainly indicates people have "checked out" of the community (as they are no longer willing to exercise the thankless self-discipline it asks for for its sake).

Ah

They are comparable in that the state's actions are equivalent in their lack of moral legitimacy. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

Yeah except you completely left out the part where you explain why they're, you know, comparable. You just walked out on stage and said "Slavery. There, now that I have moral legitimacy, I don't like ICE."

Equating "I don't like X" and "X is unethical" seems like a skill issue on your part. There are plenty of things I don't like that are not unethical for people to do.

  • -24

I'm going to claim that morality is not subjective and also I'm not telling you what it says

This is just trolling at this point.

Which I guess using your logic is comparable to enforcing slavery.

Hey speaking of skill issues, I notice you didn't explain how the two things you compared are in any way comparable. It was all fun and games equating ICE agents to guys chasing down slaves, but the moment you were asked to justify it, you imploded into mealy-mouthed bullshit where apparently everything you find unethical in any way is equivalent to the Fugitive Slave Act.

All things that are unethical share the trait of being unethical, as I have been consistent about. That does not entail that they share particular factual similarities, such as involving slavery. That was a leap you made.

  • -20

Okay so the two aren't actually comparable in any way that people should actually care about, or that you'll actually defend.

You have no actual equivalence to make between guys catching slaves and guys catching illegal immigrants, other than the fact that you think both are unethical, for reasons that may or may not have anything in common since you won't actually elaborate upon the comparison.

Okay bud, fair enough, good post I guess.

And why are those actions morally illegitimate? What is the source of moral illegitimacy in those two cases?

They are out of accordance with ethical principles, of course. Do you think returning fugitive slaves was the right thing to do?

  • -21

Which ethical principles?

You are purely baiting at this point

What do you think moral legitimacy consists of? How would it be different from what I said?

  • -17

I don't think moral legitimacy exists at all.

To paraphrase Pratchett's Death, take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one molecule of moral legitimacy.

And yet you act as if there is some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

Neither are there molecules of laws, or any particular ethnicity or nationality, or states.

Incorrect. Ethnicity is absolutely real and exists in the material world, unlike laws or morality.

You can, in fact, sieve it out.

More comments

...and your stated reason slave officers were immoral is because they were doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad. Drawing the parallel that you believe ICE officers are immoral because they are doing their jobs, and their jobs are bad is the most obvious reading IMO.

I can't see how you could miss that. In fact, I can't see what else it could possibly be, so I'll ask directly: What is the connection between ICE officers and Fugitive Slave Act enforcers, that it's appropriate to compare their moral legitimacy?

They are both doing things that are immoral. I thought I was pretty clear?

  • -19

Do you believe it is a moral duty to resist government agents every time they are doing something you believe immoral?

If so, how do you believe this is consistent with having a functional government? If not, what makes ICE so especially immoral that you believe it is a duty to resist it?

What is the connection between ICE officers and Fugitive Slave Act enforcers, that it's appropriate to compare their moral legitimacy? Why not any other immoral group, like payday loan lenders, patent trolls, or NIMBYs?

They are both agents of the state, in the instant case. There are no shortage of other immoral groups it's morally obligatory to resist as well, of course.

  • -15

There are no shortage of other immoral groups it's morally obligatory to resist as well, of course.

Why didn't you choose one of those to compare to? Choosing one with an obvious parallel then ignoring it so hard you can't recognize it when prompted is an odd choice, to say the least.

Because the bailey wouldn't have been as advantageous, obviously.

'They are agents of the state' is the motte. 'As much legitimacy as enforcing slavery' is the bailey.

He is just playing dumb and pretending to not understand the question to avoid answering it. I’m not sure why, but I doubt repeating it will get anything more meaningful out of him.

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