site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25858 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But it seems like Anti-ICE people are assuming this is their playbook because it's what they would do, and are now doing.

This is still too much of a mistake theory frame. The anti-ICE people don't care what ICEs playbook is. They oppose ICE and will do and say anything that they think helps their cause. They stubbornly deny the agent who shot Renee Good was hit by her car. They made up an Allentown grandfather. They post all sorts of stories, often claiming they're backed up by video... but the video doesn't back them up. Or they post videos which aren't even of ICE agents, such as this one. Yeah, that looks bad -- but those aren't ICE agents, those are Mobile, Alabama sheriff's deputies, and that particular incident isn't even an immigration arrest. And those filming likely KNEW those were sheriff's deputies because they (unlike the camera) could have seen what was written on the side of the police vehicle.

I don't know if they're anti-ICE because they're pro-open-borders or (more likely) they're just anti-Trump, but they're definitely by-any-means-necessary full conflict theory people.

This is still too much of a mistake theory frame. The anti-ICE people don't care what ICEs playbook is. They oppose ICE and will do and say anything that they think helps their cause

But is it really helpful to their cause to (apparently) give everyone the impression that they are a bunch of unhinged lunatics?

It reminds me of a (in my opinion) fascinating video made by William Pierce (the late neo-Nazi). It's only about 4 minutes but well worth watching in my opinion.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4-RRhs9aM

The red guards don't, uh, care very much if they make the revolution look bad, because the revolution cannot be criticized. It doesn't occur to them that not everyone thinks this way.

But is it really helpful to their cause to (apparently) give everyone the impression that they are a bunch of unhinged lunatics?

Wait, are you talking about anti-ICE people or ICE officers?

But is it really helpful to their cause to (apparently) give everyone the impression that they are a bunch of unhinged lunatics?

Not "everyone" gets this impression because only sketchy right-wing sources like AlphaNews report it. You won't see it on the mainstream media, not even the local Fox affiliate (which appears to be fully anti-ICE).

Note on that Reddit thread of the Mobile Sheriff's deputies, not one person even questioned whether those WERE ICE agents. Probably because the mods would ban anyone who did.

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