site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11789 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 15, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Only a few months ago Operation Midway Blitz commenced, also known as the Trump Invades Chicago story. There are still ongoing legal disputes as fallout from the operation. Most recently, a federal appeals court decided that a district judge's order to release 600 ICE detainees after one stage of the operation was no bueno. Although the court did reaffirm certain due process requirements. The consent decree that supervises that due process expires in February, so Trump admin may just sit and wait till then.

I was more interested in belatedly sharing an update to another happening during the Trump-Chiraq conflict which was discussed here. Marimar Martinez was shot multiple times by an CBP/ICE agent after her and one other allegedly rammed their vehicle into an CBP (ICE) vehicle. According to the government, she was a known activist participating in a "convoy" that sought to track, annoy, or disrupt ICE operations in Chicago. Media at the time reported government claims that the agent saw a pistol on or nearby Martinez while she approached him in her vehicle. Her lawyers said her legal carry pistol remained in her purse during the incident.* The statement from the Justice Department at the time of the shooting:

After striking the agents’ vehicle, the defendants’ vehicles boxed in the agents’ vehicle, the complaint states. The agent was unable to move his vehicle and exited the car, at which point he fired approximately five shots from his service weapon at Martinez, the complaint states.

Martinez drove off but paramedics discovered her and her vehicle at a repair shop about a mile away. Martinez was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where she received treatment for gunshot wounds, the complaint states.

In November, Martinez (and an Anthony Ruiz with her) had all charges dismissed with prejudice. Seemingly, the case fell apart for a few reasons. For one, the CBP took pictures of the vehicle for evidence after the incident, but then released it back to the agent involved in the shooting. He drove the vehicle back home to Maine where the CBP repaired the vehicle. Defense attorney jiu jitsu on a technicality? Maybe, but if you're going to cite car ramming in an attack, then the cars seems like important evidence. Further, after the incident the cop did the cop thing. He pumped five rounds into a person who allegedly attacked him, then told his buddies about his marksmanship on Signal: "I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys. Read it. 5 shots, 7 holes."

Video footage, possibly bodycam footage, was referenced by the defense attorneys in multiple news reports. This footage remains sealed and non-public even after the dismissal. Crass cop shop talk and accusations of inappropriate evidence collection might not alone lead to charges dismissed if there exists footage that substantially supported the government's story. One would expect further litigation if the footage and other evidence was totally exculpatory. Maybe everyone got away with something here and that no one is dead for it seems a consolation prize. Verdict: no movement on federal law enforcement meathead-unprofessional scale because, despite the above average marksmanship, this does seem rather meathead-y and unprofessional.

That consent decree that supervises some of that due process expires in February, so my money is on the Trump admin not appealing upwards to SCOTUS.

Since apparently the courts unilaterally extended that "consent decree" once, why wouldn't they just extend it again?

True. For others, Judge Cummings ordered this extension of 100 days as a punitive remedy for the DHS declaring the consent decree as expired before it had expired. Cummings being the same district judge as above whose order to bond the detainees was rejected by the appeals court. It would need to be a different kind of reasoning. I don't know how these work, but I do know consent decrees are meant to be mutually agreed upon. One would hope this limitation is respected, but, yeah, wouldn't surprise me. I imagine the admin would fight that one.

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