site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   31341 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ice-apprehension-of-us-citizens-derided-as-kavanaugh-stops

https://ij.org/client/leonardo-garcia-venegas/

You're welcome. (I'm sure you'll have some explanation for how explicit racial profiling isn't racial profiling)

Only one of those is even pretending to be an example. So, in the 700k deportations they did last year, ICE briefly detained a single citizen who was on a work crew with a bunch of other Hispanic guys who totally were illegal?

Did the anti-ICE folks finally accept that "guy who was working security on the weed farm that used illegal minors as child slaves" wasn't the most compelling case?

Seriously, if this is the best you have to offer then ICE is doing a spectacular job.

BTW,

To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion

You're welcome.

Only one of those is even pretending to be an example

You asked for a single example. I gave you a single example.

Seriously, if this is the best you have to offer then ICE is doing a spectacular job.

This is the product of about nine seconds of research to recall the details of a half-remembered case. I see no reason to put more effort into it when past experience has shown that there is no amount of unambiguous evidence that you would accept at face value, let alone as demonstrative of a pattern.

This is the product of about nine seconds of research to recall the details of a half-remembered case.

Sure, it's just that when I do that for things like excessive anti-gun laws I come up with examples like "black mom who had a totally legal gun in the back of her car by her home state's standards who was arrested and prosecuted for having a gun while getting gas because she didn't quite appreciate that her route passed through New Jersey". Or "veteran who was stopped in DC, and then arrested and prosecuted for having a spent shell casing in the trunk of his car".

In both cases, I hope them to be persuasive because of the vast chasm between the extremely minor infraction and then facing years of jail time. Imagine if the best example I could come up with was "The ATF went after this guy just because he owned a gun (and also, he was part of a gang of people that shot up a store and he was totally there but he says he didn't shoot)". I don't imagine that anyone on the other side would find that even slightly persuasive, and I would probably have to have an "Are we the baddies?" moment.

I see no reason to put more effort into it when past experience has shown that there is no amount of unambiguous evidence that you would accept at face value, let alone as demonstrative of a pattern.

The demonstrated pattern is that you have nothing remotely resembling "unambiguous" evidence. I've been asking this question for a year now, and every single example makes ICE seem actually extremely professional and reasonable.

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