site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24158 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

Apparently some stuff has been happening with Luigi Mangione lately; the front page of reddit is filled to the brim with pictures of the guy, and today I saw posts showing part of his arrest video (full video here, but does not contain the full arrest), and finding that he had a ticket for a bus to Pittsburgh on the night of the shooting, and also that the bullets in the bag were what made him a suspect for the CEO killing.

I am seeing some commonalities in all these threads: either hedged understanding/support for Mangione's actions, outright support, and extreme skepticism of the police along with claims that Mangione was framed or otherwise dastardly policing tricks were pulled on him. Police misconduct claims include that the backpack with gun and manifesto was planted on him and that they used an illegal method to find him, yet are claiming that an anonymous caller recognized him and tipped them off.

I find it interesting how pervasive these claims are. My own brother actually has told me that the backpack was likely planted on Mangione, (part of a wider array of left-wing conspiracy theories; he also was the first I'd seen state that the Trump assassination was one random attendee shooting another random attendee and accidentally wounding Trump, then later stating that it was the teleprompter glass that injured him, not the bullet itself). It's true, it's a little hard to believe that a murder suspect would keep such dangerous incriminating evidence on him in the face of a nationwide manhunt. However, I think a murderer might not make moves that someone might expect them to, and I also think that police officers have to be cautious in following the rules when it comes to the entire U.S. news media and also defense lawyers watching their every move carefully.

The thought strikes me that this is probably going to be one of the most televised court affairs since Rittenhouse. apparently not televised since it's in federal court, but everything that comes out will be highly scrutinized, at least. This time, for the first time in many years, it seems that this is a more Left-aligned murder trial. I desperately hope he gets convicted, but anything could happen. There are many ways he could get acquitted, including plain-and-simple jury nullification, which is definitely a possibility on account of his popularity.

I really don't understand the "cops framed him and planted backpack" style comments. They support him BECAUSE he killed a CEO, how can they square that with thinking he was framed. How can you love him for doing it and think he didn't do it at the same time? Literal crazy people I guess.

This is very different from the meme of "Hey Luigi, thanks for helping me hang drywall at X time on X day" which is a joking attempt to provide an alibi. That is gross but at least only requires them to hold the thought of "he did it, and its a good thing" and not ALSO "but actually he was framed."

Doublethink like this is endemic to conspiracy theorists of all stripes.

  • The movie JFK alternates between claiming Oswald was an innocent patsy framed for two murders he didn't commit, and a skilled assassin betrayed by his co-conspirators and killed because he knew too much.
  • Palestine sympathisers will swear up and down that Hamas and the broader Palestinian independence movement have the right to engage in violent resistance – but, conveniently, every single civilian killed on October 7th was killed by Israel under the Hannibal directive. Thank Christ for that!
  • Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare. (You can make this not-doublethink by phrasing it as "either immigrants are taking our jobs, or they're mooching off welfare". But at that point the fig leaf has wilted and you might as well just admit that you don't have principled economic reasons to oppose immigration.)

Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare.

I don't find that hard to square at all. Immigrants are adding to the labor pool more than they're driving job creation, therefore "taking jobs" is accurate on its face. Same with net tax payments vs. receipts (I assume).

As a current resident, the first-order effect is that it's harder to find a job and the government takes more from you while giving you less in return.

Option 2: One immigrant gets a job, brings in half a dozen family members, and receives welfare to pay for their needs.

Option 3: Fraud. There is no "except when", just "while simultaneously"

Option 4: Immigrants drive down wages of the industries they work in, to the point they qualify for welfare while doing a previously-high-paying job. No locals are willing to do the job that cheaply, which just justifies the need for immigration! Instead of one immigrant stealing one job, it's the entire immigrant workforce stealing (and degrading) an entire job sector. (This one's the most dubious IMO).

Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare. (You can make this not-doublethink by phrasing it as "either immigrants are taking our jobs, or they're mooching off welfare". But at that point the fig leaf has wilted and you might as well just admit that you don't have principled economic reasons to oppose immigration.)

...are you familiar with various techniques on how to conduct welfare fraud?

I for one am not.

One very simple one, because many illegals either work under the table or with a stolen identity: If you don't have any reported income you can still get welfare while having a job.

The amount of ways to do it are boundless though, that's just one of the more common ways.

Another variation is the kickback schemes to bribe someone to certify that you deserve the aid. So if the state has an inspector or certifying authority to sign off that you qualify, you give them part of the welfare to attest that you actually deserve it. So if the welfare check is 1000, you kick back X00 back to them so that you both profit.

This later form is easier to scale in an organized crime / corrupted institution way, such as with the recent Somali fraud ring in Minnesota. While the typical risk of scaling is a defection risk of someone wanting a bigger cut and bringing down the whole system, if you can use something like familial/social networks to coordinate, you can mitigate the defection risk and increase the scale of the corruption. All the more so if you can leverage political influence to deter local investigators.

On the immigrants thing, they can easily be doing both. Any immigrant with income below approximately the 60th percentile of income is a net negative to the taxpayer.

Then they are both taking our jobs and being net consumers of welfare.

I think there's an important distinction between "working hard, but also availing of public benefits (like healthcare etc.)" and "not working and availing of social welfare".

you don't have principled economic reasons to oppose immigration.

The principaled economic reason to oppose immigrating in this case is that you want immigrants to be net taxpayers, and also work in jobs complementary with (most) Americans rather than in competition with them.

For example, high skilled specialists we just don't have enough of. (Original use case of H1B, before it got exploited as a source of cheap accountants and php drones.)

Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare.

People literally do this, you can get paid under the table in cash and then get various types of benefits that you shouldn’t actually be eligible for.

Super common. Every Latina immigrant receives visions of the exact cutoffs for Medicaid and other government benefits while gestating her first child, along with a MLM/cash business starter kit.

Tfw no fecund Latina welfare-scamming gf :(

It is entirely possible to be working and paid under the table while claiming social welfare benefits and you don't have to be an immigrant. Many criminals in Ireland have hundreds of thousands in cash and assets while claiming the dole, it turns out when the court case eventually makes its way to trial.

(Link one)

In 2017, CAB raided the home of Kenneth Carpenter and his partner, Elaine Byrne, and seized a €2,600 Chanel handbag, four high-end watches worth €100,000 and a Brown Thomas Platinum card that requires holders spend at least €5,000 a year instore. The couple's only legitimate declared income was Elaine Byrne's allowance as a lone parent.

An early social welfare target was James Gantley, a father-of-four who found his dole payments blocked by CAB in 1998. The court heard evidence of property transactions of more than €200,000, a villa in Spain and €94,000 in a biscuit tin. Mr Gantley, years later, pleaded guilty to "voicing" the ransom demand in a botched attempt to extort money from a delivery firm.

Earlier this year, gardai in Drogheda announced they planned to target feuding drugs trafficking gangs that have terrorised the Louth town by going after their social welfare payments.

Its most recent annual report showed that of the €5.6m CAB returned to the State last year, €323,000 arose from social welfare overpayments, while it also recovered €2.2m seized as the proceeds of crime and just over €3m in taxes.

Mr Ryan's thesis finds that between 1996 and 2006, CAB's social welfare activities has generated savings to the exchequer to the tune of €7,808,753.04 and received recovery payments of €4,066,136.36.

"Whilst considerably less than the financial income generated from forfeiture of assets it nonetheless represents a significant denial of cash flow to criminality from an area of the bureau that does not receive significant attention in wider academic or media discourse," it said.

The thesis, "The examination of how the methods employed by the Criminal Assets Bureau move Ireland in a new direction of crime control", was completed as part of Mr Ryan's doctoral studies at the University of Limerick.

(Link two)

McInerney has convictions for drugs, theft, assault and passing counterfeit currency.

He bought the farmhouse and land at an auction for €233,000 in 2010 and paid a cash deposit of €23,300.

McInerney was on social welfare but claimed he got the money through the sale of another property, investments in Lanzarote, the sale of a Toyota Land Cruiser.

He also said that he had found "€5,000-€6,000" in another house he bought.

He said he got the cash deposit through a combination of "horse trading" money which was "under the counter" and two people, "Marie" and "Cha" he met for a loan of €156,000, but "didn't sign any forms at that meeting".

(Link three)

A father of five faces jail for unlawfully claiming almost €283,000 in social welfare payments uncovered following a Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) investigation.

Judge Keenan Johnson remarked on the irony that John McDonagh, 50, Dalton Park, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, has begun repaying the money using funds from his current social welfare payments.

At Mullingar Circuit Criminal Court on Thursday, he imposed sentences totalling six years, but suspended four and a half on the condition McDonagh does not reoffend in the next five years. The prison term was postdated to commence in July.

McDonagh pleaded guilty to theft in connection with the social welfare fraud, unlawfully claiming a total of €282,881 in the Jobseekers Allowance payments from July 2009 until August 2022.

Over the same period, his bank accounts showed he had other lodgements totalling €382,000.

There were €8,000 lodgements in the first year, but the annual figures increased to €85,000 before being detected when he claimed some of that money was from selling cars.

(Link four)

The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) seized more than €116 million worth of assets over 12 years with some €64.4 million transferred to the exchequer as a result of its work during the same period, according to new figures.

…This included €22,209,595 under proceeds of crime legislation, €38,021,925 in taxes and interest collected and €4,213,719 in social welfare recoveries.

Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare.

That’s not even a conspiracy theory, let alone a contradiction. Both of those things do indeed happen. (They don’t even need happen from the same immigrants, although that also happens.)

If you wanted a right-coded conspiracy to balance out your selection you could have just referenced Q.

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently well-acquainted with Q to know what beliefs of theirs would qualify as doublethink.

not sufficiently well-acquainted with Q

"Trust the plan" vs. Perpetual crisis Followers are told everything is unfolding according to a masterful plan, yet simultaneously urged to act as if democracy is in constant imminent danger requiring their immediate intervention. If the plan is working perfectly, why the panic?

The "Deep State" paradox The shadowy cabal is portrayed as both omnipotent (controlling all media, governments, and institutions globally for decades) and simultaneously incompetent (leaving obvious "clues" that amateurs on the internet can decode, being constantly on the verge of defeat).

"Do your own research" vs. Rigid orthodoxy Heavy emphasis on independent critical thinking and questioning mainstream narratives, while anyone who questions QAnon claims or reaches different conclusions is dismissed as a "shill" or "sheep." Independent research is encouraged only if it confirms predetermined conclusions.

Immigrants are taking our jobs, except when they're mooching off welfare. (You can make this not-doublethink by phrasing it as "either immigrants are taking our jobs, or they're mooching off welfare". But at that point the fig leaf has wilted and you might as well just admit that you don't have principled economic reasons to oppose immigration.)

That seems pretty different to me. It seems very possible to believe that a large number of immigrants have jobs where they are working for below market wages and undercutting native wages as a result (both illegal immigrants and H1B fall under this) and also that many more are not working at all and are mooching, and that only a small number have market rate jobs. This does not require believing that any single individual is doing both at once in a double think manner. It is even possible for a given immigrant to believe they have done both, say starting as a wage undercutting day laborer and then mooching off of welfare once he was able to get signed up for benefits, or that this individual with the wage undercutting job is ALSO getting food stamps or medicad supplementally or for their dependents. I don't think it requires believing the superposition of A and NOT A simultaneously the way the other examples do.

Furthermore, I think some immigrants get here with visas to take jobs (undercutting domestic labor), then import a bunch of family members who immediately start extracting resources from every government program they can.

But at that point the fig leaf has wilted and you might as well just admit that you don't have principled economic reasons to oppose immigration.)

@FtttG Bad form. >:|

Sorry bro.

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