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.

The habeas corpus petition was filed on September 30. He was detained on August 27. That's a solid month. How long do you think is appropriate to hold someone without charging them?

That wasn't the question. The question is whether he was disappeared. He was not. I do not know why it took a month to file the petition.

It's quite possible ICE did wrong here. What they did not do is disappear someone.

My non expert reading is that the judge is pissed at a level that is not normal.

I don't much care. Performative pissyness from judges seems to be pretty standard in political cases, and doesn't stop the judges from being overruled.

That wasn't the question. The question is whether he was disappeared

What if we amend "disappeared" to "breaking someone leg and unlawfully holding them in a hospital for 37 days without charging them and while making them hard to find for a month"

Are you fine with your government doing that to it's people? Weird hill to die on lol

What if we amend "disappeared" to "breaking someone leg and unlawfully holding them in a hospital for 37 days without charging them and while making them hard to find for a month"

Then

  1. We still don't know if it is true. We know he was held in a hospital and we know he was ordered released. That does not mean he was held unlawfully before the order, nor that he was hard to find for the relevant people (the ones who filed the habeas petition)

  2. We still don't know if the leg breaking was accidental or even justified.

  3. Most importantly, it lacks the gravity of "disappearing". Even if ICE was in the wrong, it falls somewhere between an ordinary fuck-up and some form of small-scale misconduct. If the cops decide they don't like you, break your leg, and hold you in jail for 37 days, you will eventually get over it. If they "disappear" you, you're never seen again.

It is inevitable that ICE will fuck up sometimes. It is unfortunately also inevitable that they will sometimes engage in misconduct, for which any officers who do should be (but probably will not be -- and that's a law enforcement thing in general, not specific to ICE) punished. That's a lot different than "disappearing" people, whether as a more serious form of misconduct or (as has been implied here) a matter of policy. Trying to swap those out mid-conversation is a ridiculous goalpost move.

I'm a different person, that's why I said "let's move from disappearing" because I think that's kind of a silly word to use.

Otherwise actually agree with basically all of that.

My only quibble is that it doesn't seem like ICE is super concerned with avoiding misconduct, which maybe they're sloppier than the median law agency, or maybe they just appear to be.

Which brings me back to my original thesis, their optics are terrible

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