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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This forum basically presents the cause of protests in Minneapolis as "blue tribe doesn't want immigration policy enforced". If this claim is controversial, I can back it up by linking several comments from last week saying as such, so I hope you don't feel strawmanned if you're broadly anti-protestor.
I want to present the claim that what ICE is doing in Minneapolis is inefficient at its stated goals, broadly unlawful/lawless, and disproportionate. I'm going to steelman the cause of the protestors - why it's good to go around notifying others of ICE's presence, making noise, and generally annoying them. I'm not going to support any form of unlawful action with this post, as I think it's wrong and unwise for one's personal safety to get into fights with law enforcement - but I'm going to explain why 10,000 people took to the streets in Minneapolis on Friday.
I'm using Gemini to get stats for this post, but all of the writing is entirely my own. Many of the examples I take are drawn from a recent twitter thread
In 2025, there were roughly 15,000 violent crimes in the entire state of Minnesota. Let us assume all of them occurred in Minneapolis, all of them were committed by a different illegal immigrant who was immediately released on bail or sentenced to ten minutes by liberal activist judges and then released, and all of those illegals reside in Minneapolis today. 170 murderers, 2159 rapes, 2836 robberies, 9826 aggravated assaults, all of them committed by a different illegal immigrant who is now at large in Minneapolis.
ICE has deployed approximately 3000 federal agents to Minneapolis. Supposing ICE is in fact, after the bad guys, they should probably be done by now, because they only had to arrest five people each in order to get all of the highly criminal illegals out.
The problem is, they keep wasting their time by engaging in completely lawless and unbelievable actions. These have a few flavours:
a) Firstly, as shown in many videos, ICE takes time out of their day to stop and question, photograph, detain, and arrest people for blowing whistles near them, yelling at them, and generally being annoying. I sympathize that these agents have some legitimate fears of the public, there are bad dudes who want to hurt cops. But it seems uncertain that any of these actions are actually intended to promote their safety, rather than intimidate protestors. Take a look at what started the entire Alex Pretti confrontation - they pepper sprayed a woman for what purpose, with what justification?
b) Secondly, the current immigration enforcement protocol seems to act on people who prosecutorial discretion should be utilized for, and has very consistently in the past, and then the government doesn't even bother to defend its acts to judges. Take this case, wherein we have a highly sympathetic detainee - but someone who nonetheless, I acknowledge, ordered removed many years ago, but not yet removed. That said, the government's position to the judge isn't even that they should do this, are allowed to do this, or want to do this - they literally offered no argument as to why she shouldn't be released. No, seriously, they submitted a three sentence response that said "we have no argument to present" - and then didn't just release the person themselves, without being ordered to? Why not? For what purpose does the government take actions that it does not represent to a court that it agrees with? For what purpose does the government require judges and court costs to issue orders to make them take actions that they have no argument to oppose?
Here's another case, this one directly out of Minnesota. Again, ICE should have plenty of evil criminals and pedophiles and whatnot to chase down - how and why do they have the time to go get this guy who appears to be causing no issues, other than being illegal? I understand that in the minds of many, that is sufficient, and that anyone who's illegal should be deported - ok, but what is pursuing that goal worth? Is it worth sending agents of the state to chase people down? The optimal level of any crime isn't zero, there are costs in lives, time, and tax dollars to enforce any law, and sending the government door to door for this guy is an insane waste of resources.
c) Thirdly, many of ICE's immigration enforcement actions are beyond "prosecutorial discretion should be used" - and thus, making the case for protest more important - they are actually lawless and illegal themselves. Take this case out of Minnesota. Let's assume that whatever this minor criminal history described is, it's highly objectionable, and this guy should be deported. You cannot just detain and deport someone with a pending application for lawful permanent residency, who is otherwise following the rules. If you want to deport him, you should file the paperwork to adjust his status, and give him a chance to contest it. This one is even more egregious - forget the tearjerking identity of the person arrested, just focus on the facts. This person applied for refugee status on entry, was vetted, and granted refugee status. The position of the administration, contrary to the law, appears to be that they can just arrest and detain anyone foreign present in the United States, even if they followed the rules. This is utterly lawless. Suppose that the Biden administration made a terrible mistake, and this woman is in fact a Burmese spy or a fugitive war criminal - how likely is it that figuring that out requires physical detention without warning? Has DHS actually raised a national security concern here? No - they're simply sweeping up whomever they can find, arresting people with valid paperwork, who entered lawfully, on the basis that the government has decided it wants to re-think prior decisions. This policy is illegal, cruel, arbitrary, and capricious. This is what ICE is doing in Minnesota - illegally kidnapping lawful migrants. If this alone is not worth taking to the streets to protest, what is?
d) Fourthly, and most importantly IMO, there are much better mechanisms to get to where ICE wants to go. We already have a surveillance state for the IRS that involves essentially all banking institutions and Paypal. Why won't Congress pass any number of measures that would criminalize, fine, and prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants? If the economic opportunity were much more limited, nobody would jump the border if they couldn't feed themselves after! This would have immediate negative consequences for mostly red states, however, it would likely gut their economies in short order.
The whole reason ICE is in Minneapolis has nothing to do with criminal illegal immigrants. The federal government has decided that it wants to send poorly trained, armed, and disguised agents to a city, to intimidate and cause chaos. Those who condemn the protests miss the point - the point is to show that they're not intimidated! And this is why various administration figures spend their time slandering protestors, because the goal isn't to arrest (Criminal/Illegal/Previously Prosecutorially Discretion Tolerated, pick a combo) people, or even to reduce the number of illegal immigrants living in the USA. If that were the goal, there are cheaper, faster, easier methods that don't risk the life of any agents, unless you think Tyson Foods executives are going to shoot at federal agents if their HQ gets raided. The entire operation is political theater, not a sincere attempt at policy enforcement, and utterly illegitimate from conception.
Two other arguments that I see made frequently here are:
a) All of this is necessary because of Sanctuary Policies that the Police Don't Co-Operate with DHS, so ICE Must Go Looking For The Criminals. Why don't they hang out outside the county jail and question people on their immigration status there on their release? Why don't they hang out at the courthouse - recall, a judge was just convicted of obstruction for preventing ICE from arresting someone at a hearing, they can sit in the gallery and question everyone's immigration status at the end of every hearing! You would be much more likely to arrest people guilty of criminal acts if you did this, than going door to door and getting into fights with protestors.
b) If nobody protested or interfered, then there would be much less chaos - aren't you giving Trump what he wants? Largely, no - Trump recognized pretty quickly once he watched the Renee Good video that it was regrettable and would hurt his poll numbers and his statements reflect that. Furthermore, no, I think it's good and justifiable that people protest when the state decides to waste tax dollars and commit illegal acts while acting like an occupying force rather than servants of the public! My least favourite (former) congressional representative makes the point rather well here. The behaviour of the feds, to inefficiently pursue questionable goals of questionable legality with strongarm tactics is to blame. It is the sign of a healthy, engaged citizenry that ten thousand people decided to go out in extremely cold temperatures and make their voices heard, peacefully.
I'm curious as to why someone in the country for 26 years who has been compliant with regulations isn't given asylum or citizenship. I'm not doubting the story, but if this is so, then the entire system is backed up worse than a toilet and is clearly not able to handle the applicants it has, on top of the new applications flooding in.
As to the whistling, etc. yeah it's annoying rather than dangerous but at the same time, it is intended to interfere with ICE agents doing their jobs. Imagine you at your own job and someone standing nearby yelling, blowing a whistle, etc. Would you just shrug and go "well it's not illegal and I'm not in danger of harm" or would you get security to bounce them out the door? The protestors are there to interfere with ICE carrying out their duty, so they have to expect ICE to question them and even arrest them.
EDIT: Also, your harmless peaceful protestors are plenty able to engage in mob behaviour themselves; invading a church because, apparently, the pastor has the same surname as an ICE official. No checking out who the guy is, if this is the right place - nope, just storm on in and disrupt the service. Luckily this time nobody got hurt, but this is the kind of mob behaviour that can go bad.
People who came in illegally and lived law-abiding lives for decades are still technically here illegally. There are avenues for such people to pursue naturalization and citizenship, but it's not simple and typically they have to leave the country and spend a minimum number of years outside the US before being allowed to reenter. As abused as asylum laws are, not everyone can just claim asylum ("Really, you were fleeing from the dystopian failed state of... Ireland?") So yeah, there are people who have been here for years, raised families, pay taxes, but technically could be arrested by ICE even now. Reagan issued an amnesty in the 80s which allowed many long-time illegal residents to naturalize, but there hasn't been such an opportunity since.
And how exactly is a life illegally spent in the United States "law abiding"? Literally every moment they aren't choosing to leave they are participating in an ongoing crime. I'm not even that invested in this kind of demographic control of the US, but the mental gymnastics the left employs to pretend that immigration law in the US isn't really US law are mind boggling to me, and it seems like normies basically just accept it. If anything violating immigration law should count extra for lawbreaking because it's literally the first area of law you'd need to investigate upon entering a foreign country.
Keep in mind that every time someone smokes weed in the United States, they are still engaging in an illegal act (yes, it’s legal in many states, but still illegal at the federal level). Every time one goes over 55 (or 65, or as much as 80) on the freeway, they are engaging in an illegal act.
There are a lot of things people do in their day to day lives which are illegal, but enforcement is selective.
For years, decades, we have allowed “illegals” to come here, we have allowed them to work here, heck big portions of our economy depend on their “illegal” labor (let me tell you, house maintenance has been a lot cheaper for me because I’m English-Spanish bilingual). It’s something we have permitted because it has benefited us as a nation.
Trump coming down this hard in “illegals” is unprecedented, and while there is a lot I dislike about the Blue Tribe, I can see why they’re so up in arms about ICE’s raids.
Yes, and if the National Motorists Association set up teams to impede the police from catching speeders, they'd be arrested and jailed and get no support.
Do you think people flashing their high beams to warn about speed traps should be arrested and jailed?
I'm not talking about mere warning, I'm talking about deliberately physically interposing themselves between the police and the speeders.
More options
Context Copy link
Fined, probably. Arrested, if they start blocking traffic. Sure, why not?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that there are many laws that are wrong, should change, and even that it's proper and moral to break and improper and immoral to support or enforce. However, there is no meaningful dispute whether or not the law is in fact being broken. I personally disagree that immigration law is in this morally illegitimate category of law, and I certainly think it's unwise to break regardless of the morality of the matter. Any of these people could have been deported at any time, even if they were statistically less likely to be under a politically different administration. That's the whole reason that evil scumbags like doing business with them, because they've all got a massive blackmail threat hanging over their heads.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some grandma staying in the US illegally is very much not a central case of what people think by "criminal" (the directional opposite of "law abiding"), any more than an elderly hippie who grows some pot for personal use is.
I think there are circumstances where 99% would be willing to violate the law of their host country (e.g. if the alternative was to get deported to Afghanistan). I will grant you that there are illegals for whom going back would not be a matter of life and death, but 'merely' an inconvenience.
I also am generally doubtful that Republicans are really as much into obeying the law as they claim they are. Rolling coal seems to be very much a Red Tribe thing, after all.
(Or hypothetically, suppose that a liberal SCOTUS ruled that 2A only applied to weapon designs existing in 1791, and Congress banned all newer guns. "Too bad, but the constitution says what SCOTUS says it says, so I better get all my guns neutered and buy a nice flintlock pistol for home defense. After all, the law is the law, even if I do not agree with it. I certainly would not want to own an illegal firearm, after all!" is what a law-abiding person might think. I think plenty of Republicans would instead break this law or condone others breaking it, and red states would simply decide that enforcing it is not a policing priority.)
79% of refugees in Sweden have gone on holiday back to their home country. In the US, almost all illegals are economic migrants. I get trying to pick the most tendentious phrasing possible for a statement which is technically true, but you've got to ask which one is actually the edge case you imply.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, of course it's law. It's not all migrants from third world countries, though. There are people who overstayed tourist or student visas, maybe had some kids, and because of various complicated personal situations, couldn't or wouldn't become legalized. Are they breaking the law? Sure. Do I think they made avoidable mistakes at some point? Yes. Should they all be tackled by ICE outside their homes and shipped home in cuffs, even if they've been working and paying taxes for decades? Yeah, I am aware this gives some people a hard-on.
Should every single one of us be subjected to maximal enforcement of every law we have every violated? Okay, fine, you hate illegals. I think illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deterred. I think people who break other laws should be prosecuted and deterred.
I hate drunk drivers. DUI is bad, I think they absolutely should be punished. Should the police pull every drunk driver out of their car at gunpoint? No. And I don't necessarily think everyone should go to jail on their first DUI, but certainly on their third or fourth. But some people think you should go to prison and lose your driving privileges forever on your first DUI. I disagree with these people. It doesn't mean I think DUI is okay or shouldn't be enforced. Some people think DUI is a minor violation and no big deal and everyone does it. I think those people are wrong too.
Local right-wingers of The Motte, and especially if we have any actual Red Tribe good ole boys left, do y'all's social groups make the weird sexualized insults towards the left, too?
I only ever see it as a left against right thing, or whatever Amadan is against right apparently, but I assume that's mostly a social bubble effect.
I am not really a Red Triber but the online right has no end of weird sexualized insults towards the left. Many of them are funny. Sexualized insults are pretty common among young guys in general
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Usually 'the men are fags, but the women are so ugly who could blame them'. Referring to female activists as desperate for male attention or male activists as sleazy rapists is also popular.
More options
Context Copy link
"xyz gives some people a hard-on" is just guy talk. I don't see it as "weird(ly) sexualized" in any way, and I'd be surprised if it were a left-coded way of communicating. I'd be more surprised if someone took time to do a study to determine this.
More options
Context Copy link
If you hang in spaces with actual leftists, >90% of their personal insults to the right (i.e. outside political insults like "fascist") are based around sucking cock or some other accusation that the right-winger is actually a gay bottom in the given situation. What that says about gay/queer/etc. left-wingers' views of themselves is left as an exercise for the reader.
That is not my experience, though I admit I don't exactly hang around with the Hasan Piker fan club. Mostly what I see in the way of insults is they are evil and devoid of human feelings, or they are stupid and uneducated. The most "sexual" common insult is claims that their guns/SUVs/McMansions/etc. are compensating for small dicks.
Dunno where you see all this queer talk. Maybe you are deeper in leftist circles than I am.
Ah, I don't mean in leftist spaces where they're talking about rightoids rather than to them - I mean in contexts where left-wingers and right-wingers are talking to each other (which is, I know, a highly unusual occurence, and probably has some variance per space). I suspect this greatly changes the makeup of the insults used.
Thinking about it, though I rarely check twitter comment beefs, a lot of the retweets there are "you are evil and devoid of human feelings", but I guess Twitter has that element of performing for a like-minded audience, and those still get dragged pretty often (the most recent one I recall was Joyce Carol Oates getting ethered by "wanye").
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The right equivalent is usually calling leftists pussies, cucks, or otherwise implying they are weak and womanly.
More options
Context Copy link
Calling the left cucks is an extremely common sexualized insult from the right.
It's a sexual metaphor, but the point is the concise metaphor and not the sexual aspect: the person being insulted is meant to understand that they are willingly handing over or choosing not to protect something that belongs to them in a craven way. On the other hand it seems like the sexual aspect of "it gives them a hard-on" is the intended reading.
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't heard that one for a while so it dropped off my radar. Fair enough. The right has cuck, the left has "makes pp hard," it seems. Gross.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This analogy would work better if the drunk driver was choosing to drive drunk every single day for years. He can stop at any point, but he chooses not to. Residing in a country illegally isn't committing one crime, it's committing the same crime every day for however long you stay in the country.
Okay. Lots of people walk around every day committing some form of crime, whether it's minor violations they aren't even aware of or an ongoing illegal behavior. I am just not moved by "EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY WAKE UP ILLEGAL THEY ARE CONSTANTLY IN A STATE OF DOING CRIME!" Yes, that's true. I disagree we should make every one of them eat pavement and boot and there's no other remedy but that, but I understand this is a minority view here. Perhaps if you stretch your capacity for charity a bit you can understand this does not also mean I think everyone should be allowed to COMMIT CRIME EVERY DAY with impunity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm just objecting here to the rhetorical pose of remaining in the country illegally as "law-abiding" behavior.
If I inserted the word "otherwise" would you be less distressed?
Yes, though it's a loadbearing "otherwise" and I think it unravels the argument you're trying to make, as you're trying to argue the state should be less aggressive in punishing a completed crime, not that it should be less aggressive in stopping an ongoing crime.
I'm arguing the state should exercise discretion in punishing crimes, not all crimes are equal in severity, and not all criminals are equal in deleteriousness to the public good. This is why we have courts and judges and a Constitution, though I am increasingly persuaded by those who argue that these things are fabulations and all that matters is who's holding the gun. I think that's a very unfortunate descent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also it's presuming that the median peaceful resident of the USA is productive simply by virtue of not actively commiting crimes. It's still eminently possible to be a net drain on public resources whilst holding a full time job
Sure, but that also describes many people who voted for Trump. Should we deport every working-age able-bodied adult who falls below a given productivity threshold?
Potentially one grandfathers the existing legal population then applies moderate filtering to try and ensure that new additions are net positives?
That well is utterly poisoned
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If that is the deal that needs to be made to get far more deportations then that is the deal that should be made.
Genetically inferior America is a huge risks to civilization. Indian doesn’t invent tech despite potentially having as many IQ individuals as the west because they have a lot of low IQ people do. Civilization would entire be dependent on China if America fell.
If we could only do deportations based on measured IQ then we should do it.
Keep geniuses hotties and femboys, shoot everyone else at the border. There is literally zero downside to this rationale.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they are immigrants rather than than citizens, then yes. All immigrants should contribute to their host country.
But deportation of illegals isn't a punishment or a form of demographic shaping, it's correcting a breach in the law, like repairing a vandalised window. France* shouldn't be deporting the native French underclass because they are rightly France's problem, but France absolutely should deport its immigrant underclass, especially if they arrived illegally. Similarly, the heritage American dysfunctional Trump voters are America's problem, why should any other country be obliged to take them?
*I chose France to avoid the mess of birthright citizenship, which should obviously be abolished due to the moral hazard it represents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've encountered my fair share of Irish people unironically describing it as such. They lack perspective.
Is it the "I survived the Irish theocracy of the 90s" type or are they saying Ireland is like that now?
The latter. Personally, I don't think the standard gripes about a shortage of accommodation, unreliable public transport and an imperfect public health service a failed state make.
A lot of my friends are non-natives, and I often joke that, in Ireland, there are no issues, problems or inconveniences. There are only crises.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link