site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   11242 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

there is no reason to believe that any other plausible method would deliver better results.

This is factually false. E-verify is a thing. If you want to stop people who are not authorized to work from working, then mandating that employers actually check that their employees are authorized to work for them seems like an obvious step to take.

If you haven't even taken the step of mandating the use of e-verify for all employers, I don't believe you when you say "but we have to disappear people, it's the only strategy that could possibly work".

I don't believe you when you say "but we have to disappear people, it's the only strategy that could possibly work".

Nobody is getting disappeared. Everyone apprehended can be looked up on a public website. https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search

Nobody, you say?

A federal judge has ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to temporarily end round-the-clock surveillance of a man hospitalized with a broken leg he suffered during his arrest [...] The man, who suffered a broken leg while being arrested in California on August 27, had been detained for more than 37 days [...] To date, ICE has not placed petitioner in removal proceedings, charged him with violating immigration law, set bond, issued a Notice to Appear or otherwise processed him [...] The man, registered by ICE with the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen,” was arrested by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the Carson Car Wash in Carson, California, on August 27

So ICE arrested someone, detained him for 37 days in the hospital under armed guard, did not charge him with anything, denied him legal counsel, and used a pseudonym when registering him in the locator. That sure sounds to me like "ICE disappeared that guy".

It does not appear he was "disappeared". Otherwise, how would the habeas corpus petition be filed in the first place?

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?

On September 17th, 3 weeks after he was first detained, CBP informed him that they still hadn't assigned him an A-number - so

  • the ICE locator mentioned upthread wouldn't show him by his name
  • the ICE locator mentioned upthread wouldn't show him by a-number because one had not been assigned

My non expert reading is that the judge is pissed at a level that is not normal. From the temporary restraining order

There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action. To the contrary, there is a substantial public interest ‘in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.

And looks like she's expecting malicious compliance from ICE as well

To be clear, Respondents must not remove Petitioner from the hospital, cause his discharge before his medical team deems it medically appropriate, or require his in-person appearance before an immigration officer prior to his discharge from the hospital. Rather, the Court orders that guards be withdrawn from Petitioner’s hospital room, that restrictions on his activities be lifted (including his ability to make telephone calls to family and friends and to confer confidentially with counsel outside the presence of ICE agents), and that any physical restraints, such as handcuffs, be removed.

This guy had 2-4 guards posted 24/7 for over a month. Someone high up signed off on this, this can't be written off as a single agent acting alone. Seems pretty egregious to me..

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